Sample In-Class Essay Tests
Here are several “A” level tests from Week 1 in Winter Quarter 2016
E1AH Question: Who are Professor Muller’s naysayers? In
your opinion, are his responses to their objections sufficiently
strong to convince you – or do you find yourself siding with his
naysayers even after giving Muller’s counter-arguments careful
consideration? Be sure to include plenty of brief quotes and
examples from Muller’s article in framing your response. No
page number citations are needed.
Professor Muller’s naysayers are the U.S. government, politicians and
scientists, and the general public. In his article, he details each of his
naysayers’ positions on the debate on nuclear waste, before
convincingly delivering his own stance on the subject. His success in
convincing the reader is in part due to the great evidence he provides to
support his input, but it is mostly because of how he skillfully
discredits his naysayers.
Muller opens his article by setting up the debate on nuclear waste. The
first sentence provides the “pro-nuke” position: “As people recognize
the dangers of fossil fuel plants… nuclear power begins to look more
attractive.” He then delivers the “anti-nuke” opposition with, “But what
about the waste--all that highly radioactive debris that will endure for
thousands of years?” Throughout the article, he continues to explore
these two conflicting sides. He employs the basic template of “on one
hand / on the other hand” detailed in They Say, I Say. This makes him
out to be a person who is knowledgeable on the nuclear waste debate.
Because he is aware of the different sides to the debate and concedes to
each side’s reasonable points, he is in a good position to give us a
solution. In other words, he is setting up the reader to make his
argument credible and trustworthy.
He starts by removing the reader from any opinion they may have on
the topic: “Nuclear waste is one of the biggest technical issues that any
future president is likely to face.” By provoking the reader to think
about nuclear waste from the perspective of a future president, he
pushes us away from any existing biases we may possess. Muller than
discredits his naysayers. The U.S. government is pushing for the
continued use of nuclear technology by persisting that there is a way to
dispose of nuclear waste safely. How? By way of a nuclear waste
facility within Yucca Mountain. Muller swiftly delivers Yucca
Mountain’s seismic activity, and appears to temporarily assume the
“anti-nuke” position. Then, he goes on to talk about his experiencing
discussing Yucca Mountain with scientists and politicians. Muller says,
“Both are in favor of more research--scientists because that is what they
do, and politicians because they think the research will answer the key
questions. I don’t think it will.” This passage does two things: (1) he
discredits their position of carrying out more research, and (2) he goes
back to this position later to discredit this third naysayer, the public.
Muller asserts that the public does not take into account any
presidential responsibility or scientific perspective. They simply insist
on absolute security, which is impossible. Muller convincingly states
that the nuclear substances within Yucca Mountain are significantly
less dangerous than the nuclear substances that are buried in the ground
and could potentially seep into our water. He uses the public as his
biggest naysayer: “Raise the standards, increase the safety, do more
research...and in the process you will improve safety and frighten the
public.” He is suggesting that the public is doing more damage to their
argument than they are promoting it.
So what is Muller’s solution? “Put the waste in glass pellets in a
reasonably stable geologic formation, and start worrying about real
threats--such as the dangers of the continued burning of fossil fuels.”
Throughout the article, Muller creates an angle where it seems like
politicians and scientists are on one side and the public is on the other,
but then exposes that they are both working against the same side: a
solution to the problem nuclear waste. There are always uncertainties
and things we cannot control; he illustrates this with his examples: Will
Yucca Mountain explode? Even if it doesn’t now, it could in 10,000
years. And even if it doesn’t explode, the natural uranium in the ground
is more dangerous. Muller’s message is clear and makes an impact: the
solution is to abandon this futile debate, and act smart now.
E1CH Question: In your opinion, how can Kuhn’s concepts of
“paradigms” and “normal science” be applied to the teaching of
contemporary science today? In framing your answer, be sure
to include plenty of brief quotes and examples from the book –
as well as your own original examples and insights.
In my opinion, Thomas Kuhn's concepts of paradigm and normal science can be
applied in many ways in the contemporary science today. One way Kuhn's concepts
of normal science can be applied is the breaking the the traditional teaching
concepts. In today's modern age, different methods are being applied to teaching,
including the use of technology. The schools are trying to break away from the
traditional method of schooling and tests to fit the needs of the diverse students and
to pertain to each students individual learning method. Thomas Kuhn defines
normal science as research or study "firmly based on one or more past scientific
achievements". Kuhn explains that scientific achievements that were made in the
past should be taken into context of that age and environment, within that historical
period. He argues that theories and discoveries are being written down in textbooks
throughout the generations and being passed on and build on. He describes them
like classics that are unchangeable, never argued or questioned or looked in context.
And he has a good point. Our textbooks are indeed filled with theories and models
discovered decades if not hundreds of years ago, and the students are forced to
work these theories and take them for granted, and never questioned. This needs to
change. Contemporary science has to open us the students minds to the ideas of
Thomas Kuhn. The students need to broaden their minds and change their views.
However, change is happening right now. A different method of learning is being
planned and implemented, a new kind of history class in the schools: Big History.
Big History is a non-traditional history class, in which the whole history of the
universe in being thought in the classroom, from the birth of the universe to the
discovery of cells. The class connects what happened, in history to the current and
it's impacts. This allows the students to learn about history like never before; in a
sense that they don't have to memorize dates and charts, but take a more applied
approach to science in which everything is connected, and not a separate even on
it's own. Big history is an example of a profound and positive change in our teaching,
and it's supported includes Microsoft founder Bill Gates. This change is exactly what
Kuhn wanted to see in the sciences. He doesn't want history to be written as
constitution and never challenged and changes as time and environment evolves.
Instead he encourages us to re-examine them, to re-analyze it. Thomas Kuhn argues
that normal science can be challenges, and when it is, and it often is, it can lead to
new discoveries. "Normal science often goes astray. And when it does-then begin
the extraordinary investigations that lead the profession at last to a new set of
commitments, a new basis for the practice of science" (pg.6). This explains that
when when we do look at science and challenge the abnormalities, we make new
discoveries and the old model has to be changed.
Also, when we re-analyze paradigms, we have the ability to bring significant changes
in science. In the book "The Structure of Scientific Revolution", Thomas Kuhn argues
gives us a new perspective in the way we view science. His concepts of
transformations of paradigms brings new insight into the world of science. Long
held theories of gravity to electricity are given time and context of the period. I
agree with his concept of looking at the models, as humans change means progress.
For instance, the Bible, written hundred of years ago is taken literally from word to
word by people in today's modern age. People have to realize that the events
happened long ago and they have to take it in that context and time. As our
environment and time changes, we have to adapt and learn. Science has to as well.
Kuhn argues that the paradigms in science have to be challenged. Today's society
relies more on textbooks and traditional method of teaching that has held steady for
hundred of years. The students have to open up their minds and re-analyze the
theories, and not take the words in the science textbooks as if they are unchanging.
Because our universe is changing, and so should we and our methods of teaching.
E1BH Question: At the end of Chapter 1 Marshall concludes
that “On reflection, it is hard to imagine any social environment
in which a narrative of responsibility, austerity and future
hardship would be less welcome than a community recovering
from a climate disaster.” Yet on the very next page, in the
opening of Chapter 2, he writes that “This is why climate
change communicators are convinced that extreme weather
events can … ‘be counted on to be an extremely effective
teacher and motivator.’” In your opinion, is Marshall
contradicting himself? If so, why? If not, why not? In framing
your own response, be sure to include plenty of brief quotes
from both chapters in your answer.
George Marshall presents what may seem to be two ideas on opposite sides of
the spectrum. He initially states that no community recovering from a climate
disaster would accept the possibility of future disasters due to climate change, but
he then goes on to use a victim of Typhoon Haiyan as an example of an "extremely
effective teacher and motivator." The victim warned others from distant locations of
"the reality that is climate change." Throughout Chapter 3, George Marshall actually
uses Typhoon Haiyan as an introduction to his argument that while people may
acknowledge that climate is changing, nothing is being done about it. Also, Marshall
is not the one who believes that climate change communicators can make a
difference, it is "Elke Weber, an environmental risk specialist at Columbia
University." In my opinion, George Marshall does not contradict himself since he
effectively uses Elke Weber's statement only to make the point that acknowledging
climate change will still not change the views of particular people.
In Chapter 2, he describes his experiences with the residents in areas affected
by natural disaster. Bastrop County, for example, was completely void of any
discussion on how the wildfire of October 2011 may or may not have been due to
climate change. Similar in behavior, the New Jersey community that suffered from
Hurricane Sandy did not emphasize on the possibility of climate change being the
cause of the Atlantic hurricane. Instead, the dominant narrative throughout both
communities were about the "many acts of kindness, altruism, and generosity" that
resulted from the disasters. Both Bastrop County and New Jersey were more hung
up on how what they learned from the disasters was their capacity as a community
to overcome challenges. They, however, did not stop to think about how climate
change was actually occurring and the future hardships that will come along with it.
Marshall brought up a few particular individuals who acknowledged that climate is
changing, but each person was unable to fully understand the drastic affect that it
may have. Cyndi Wright, an editor of a newspaper in Bastrop County, went as far as
to say that "if climate change had a direct impact on us," then it would be
appropriate for a discussion in their county newspaper. Climate change supposedly
does not have any true affect on Bastrop County, because, well, they are Bastrop
County. Wright, like many others, believe the climate is changing, but they do not
think that it affects them in particular.
Residents of locations that have gone through a climate disaster are most
likely to ignore that "there are larger changes under way." They prefer to focus on
returning to normality because they do not want to admit defeat. The residents talk
only about the generosity of their community because they do not want to lose hope.
This type of thinking "predisposes them to undue optimism about the future and
their own chances." Even the states most consistently affected by extreme weather
are doubtful of future climate disasters. Marshall writes that "we are therefore
prone to interpret [weather events] in light of our prior assumptions and
prejudices." Throughout the first three chapters, Marshall introduces the idea that
climate change is no longer about truth vs. fiction or science vs. interests, it is about
how we see "only what we want to see" and disregard "what we prefer not to
know."
3
Here are several "A" level tests from previous classes for you to study as
adequate "models" of pretty good student writing. These were “real answers”
written by “real Foothill students” during the very first week of the quarter. None
received a perfect score. Note that the answers differ, often radically (since these
tests are opinion questions open to interpretation). Also note, however, that each
student begins in exactly the same way: by answering the question, briefly but
completely, in the first paragraph – then presenting detailed textual evidence,
analysis, examples and explanations step-by-step in the following paragraphs to
support that initial answer. Check out my Top Ten Tips for “Taking Timed Tests”
handout for more ideas and inspriations.
English 1A Honors Test #1 on Carol Dweck’s Mindset
Winter 2010 Question: In your opinion, is Professor Dweck’s dual Mindset model
too oversimplified to be fully convincing? Be sure to include numerous quotes and
examples from the assigned reading to support your opinion--with special emphasis
on the" Questions and Answers" section pages 45 -54.
Jennifer Williams
Professor Dweck's model of the dual mindset can initially be seen as
oversimplified and can seem unconvincing, until you read her responses to the
questions on pages 45-54. Professor Dweck recognizes the variables and
possibilities of people's personalities keeping her theory from being black & white.
She presents the dual model as a starting point, a guideline, and leaves room for
differing circumstances to be considered so that readers can decide for themselves
how to apply her theory to their lives.
When I first read, on page 6, that "the fixed mindset creates an urgency to
prove yourself over and over," I didn't buy it. I imagined that a growth mindset
would encourage a lack of effort - the "why try?" attitude she attributes to those with
a fixed mindset. In fact, I felt that those with the growth mindset would be the ones
to be more susceptible to the "I'm not enough. No matter how hard I try, it's never
enough" type thinking making them feel that they would have to prove themselves
over and over. They are perfectly aware they don't know everything! I thought that
they'd be the ones who would be exhausted from the constant effort. She validates
this thought with the first question she poses and sensibly explains it away when
she answers, "Because every day new and larger dragons come along and, as things
get harder, maybe the ability they [fixed mindset] proved yesterday is not up to
today's task." She’s right. Consistent willingness to confront life's continuing
problems is one way to identify a person with a growth mindset. A person with a
fixed mindset gives up because they don't feel capable. A growth mindset person
wouldn't "give up" because they felt inadequate.
Professor Dweck voiced another thought of mine when she asked "Are these
just people with low self-esteem?” But she immediately and successfully put it to
rest when she answered, "No. When they aren't coping with failure, they feel just as
worthy and optimistic - and bright and attractive - as people with the growth
mindset.” She supports her theory convincingly with this statement. On page 51, she
continues to support this by saying, “No. People with the fixed mindset have just as
much confidence as people with the growth mindset – before anything happens, that
is. But…they’re confidence is more fragile since setbacks and even effor can
undermine it.” Because that is the difference - how these two different mindsets
cope with failure and how do they view success. She validates the myriad of human
emotions and further underscores this point when she says, "You don't have to have
one mindset or the other to be upset." By acknowledging this, she eliminates the
"high vs. low" self esteem argument. Then she reiterates her point when she adds,
"Even though they [growth mindset people] felt distressed, they were ready to take
the risks, confront the challenges, and keep working at them."
She is also consistent. She is is convincing in her theory about mindsets and
avoids contradicting herself when she answers the question, "Are mindsets a
permanent part of your makeup or can you change them?" She reiterates that it is a
starting point, mirroring Binet's belief that "education and practice could bring
about fundamental changes in intelligence."
Dweck’s theory is simple, and can be seemingly understated and
oversimplified. But once she is allowed to explain and support her theory, it is
understandable and convincing.
Caitlin Dineen
Dweck’s Mindset models do provide two strong, incredibly different
personality categories. However, by only providing two categories and creating a
“either black or white” scenario, it leaves little room for variation outside of the two
pre-prescribed mindsets. This is why I believe her model is too generalized to be
fully convincing.
In her book, Dweck delves heavily into her research with elementary aged
school children, and how she noticed that they siphon off into either a fixed or
growth mindset; either growing apart from their once ravenous desire to learn, or
they hold onto it. She questions the reader, asking “what could put an end to this
exuberant learning?” and then answers her own question by stating “The fixed
mindset. As soon as children become able to evaluate themselves, some of them
become afraid of challenges." According to Dweck, most children either strive
towards challenge, or they shrink away from it, preferring to play it safe, sticking to
“kids who are born smart ‘don’t do mistakes.’” I find that just by setting “most”
children into an either or category not only undermines the phenomenon known as
“the developing child,' but also exudes a fixed mindset by the very action of
categorizing children “either-or”!
Dweck spends most of the time between pages 1 and 54 giving different
examples for fixed and growth mindsets, showing us how most people either fall
into one category or the other. It is only at the very end, around page 47, that she
starts exploring the idea of people possessing a combination of the two. By the very
fact that the first part of the book is devoted to giving the reader visuals of how
people, familiar, famous, applicable people, exemplify either a fixed or growth
mindset, it proves that she oversimplifies her message. She even states that “many
people have elements of both. I’m talking about it as a simple either-or for the sake
of simplicity." I believe that Dweck fails to fully realize that when making a book for
the general public, in a “pop psychology” style of writing, that her opinions do take a
shape and toll on the people reading her words, and that they won’t necessarily
realize that there are more than three choices for them to fall into unless Dweck
outlines those other choices for the reader. It may even put a strain or stress on the
people reading her book when they suddenly start self-evaluating, figuring out
whether they are fixed, which Dweck alludes is bad, or are they growth, which
Dweck alludes is good. Dweck subtly takes advantage of her own findings, and uses
people’s insecurities that they might be “fixed” not only to get them to read her
book, but to get away with oversimplifying her message.
For years, decades even, psychologists have battled about how children
develop into adults, using the classic “nature or nurture” argument that anyone who
has taken a psychology class knows about. However, recently, more researchers
have proposed a different theory, that it is neither nature nor nurture, nor is it solely
a combination of the two. They propose that children develop through a mix of
nature, nurture, environmental influences, personality, the caregiver bond, etc. So
why should we accept that people fit into “fixed”, “growth”, or a combination of the
two? And for that matter, why should we assume that, as children, we just start
suddenly going south or north, fixed or growth? Dweck even gives personal
testimony, telling the reader that from a young age, that “even as a child I was
focused on being smart, but the fixed mindset was really stamped in by Mrs. Wilson,
my sixth grade teacher”. Children are obviously influenced by authority figures, and
they like to imitate what they see those figures doing, because they want to be like
adults, doing the right thing (Albert Bandura was the front-runner behind this
theory). So if a teacher, one that they admire or are obedient towards, clearly shows
that the “smart kids”, the ones with the higher IQs, are more trustworthy and
everyone else is obsolete, then why shouldn’t a child develop a fixed mindset? This
is another example of Dweck’s oversimplification, because she doesn’t fully delve
into the origins of how we come to have our “either-or” mindsets, and doesn’t leave
room for other factors.
On another note about oversimplification, Dweck also doesn’t attend to the
more complicated “combinations” that she shortly addresses around page 47. What
about the individuals who are willing to learn, but aren’t given the opportunity or
the tools to begin? Or the people looking to be accepted so they copy those they
admire, much like a child copies another child’s artwork because they saw that child
getting praised for their picture? Dweck says that “even when you think you’re not
good at something, you can still plunge into it wholeheartedly and stick to it.
Actually, sometimes you plunge into something because you’re not good at it”,
proving that just because a person has a fixed or growth mindset doesn’t mean they
are or aren’t willing to try. So why then does Dweck, again and again, find reason to
example how people with fixed mindsets avoid challenge while people with growth
mindsets run towards it? There are just too many complex personality traits and
parts running a human being to be able to simply categorize a person one of three
categories.
Yi Put Cheng
Professor Dweck restricts the mindsets that all people are divided into
two, the fixed and growth mindset. Throughout the first part in her book, she
applies these two kinds of mindsets on different real life situations, with people
showing their traits and characteristics of their mindsets in different actions and
events. From my point of view, people’s actions and decisions are far too complex to
be fully represented and explained solely by the fixed or growth mindset.
Her dual mindset model is too oversimplified to be fully convincing in the
sense that all human behavior is somehow to be described from either fixed or
growth mindset, without any other factors intervening. It is beyond doubt that her
model reflects our thought patterns, but our behavior sometimes does not take the
extreme of fixed or growth mindsets. Instead it lies somewhere between them. Take
one of the examples from the book. It is said that students with the fixed mindset
respond to an academic failure by looking for people who are even worse than they
are in order to repair their self-esteem, while those with the growth mindset
respond by looking at tests of students who have done better than them for
improvement. However, the dual mindset model cannot be applied to explain all
students’ behavior in this situation. There are always some people who choose not
to take ‘fixed’ or ‘growth’ actions. In this case, some students may be indifferent to
their test scores and they will not be searching for people who are better or worse.
They may either work harder or work less in response to an academic failure.
An example from the questions and answers section ironically challenges
the dual mindset model. Some workaholics who seem to have a fixed mindset do
work hard and take on challenges. Dweck regards this scenario as a desire for
constant validation. These workaholics actually impose a contradiction to the fixed
mindset definition. I think Dweck has expanded the sense of a fixed mindset too
broadly. Encountering challenges means you have to take risks and do something
that may be out of your control and skills. When these people are willing to take on
challenges, we cannot tell they have a fixed mindset since they are not afraid to go
beyond their personal limit. The mindset model is too oversimplified to cover too
many actions.
People’s behavior may change over time too. In the questions and answers
section, Dweck claims that we can have different mindsets in different aspects. This
reveals that she herself recognizes that people’s decisions can change with different
mindsets. Moreover, although confronting the same situation, people may have
different choices at different times. Choice and action at the second time may differ
from that at the first time. In this case we cannot tell a person is having a fixed or
growth mindset based on their decisions. While Dweck claims that we can be halfhalf in the dual mindset model, there may be more mindsets and components in the
model which she has neglected.
Brendan Stewart
Professor Carol Dweck herself states that she's simplified her Fixed vs.
Growth mindset model in order to illustrate her point more clearly. When asked
“Can I be half and half? I recognize both mindsets in myself,” Carol responds “Many
people have elements of both. I'm talking about it as a simple either-or for the sake
of simplicity.” It's good that she took the time to answer this question, because
throughout most of the first two chapters, I kept recognizing traits from both the
fixed and growth mindsets within my own thought process. Yes, she's
oversimplified her model for the sake of a general audience, but at the same time, I
am convinced that her Fixed/Growth model is a credible one, because for the most
part, it's based on sound psychological research.
Many of her examples in the first two chapters are based on carefully planned
psychological tests and evaluations. The most insightful hard evidence she sited was
the research on brain wave differences between those with a fixed and those with a
growth mindset. At a brain-wave analysis lab in Columbia, college students
answered difficult questions and were given feedback as their brain waves were
measured. “People with a fixed mindset were only interested when the feedback
reflected on their ability,” Carol notes. “Their brain waves showed them paying close
attention when they were told whether their answers were right and wrong. But
when they were presented with information that could help them learn, there was
no sign of interest.” Even if Professor Dweck has simplified her model, siting
examples backed by hard scientific research like brain-wave analysis does much to
strengthen her credibility, because it's verifiable and subject to peer-review.
In another example, a survey, sent out to teachers asked how they would
“treat” a hypothetical student who had received a 65% on a math exam. “Teachers
with the fixed mindset were more than happy to answer questions. They felt that by
knowing Jennifer's score, they had a good sense of who she was and what she was
capable of.” The classic psychological survey with an ulterior motive. The data is
quantifiable, and the test sound, a definite point in Professor Dweck's favor.
Unfortunately, these two are only solid examples of hard evidence, in my
opinion. Dweck provides many more examples that strengthen her argument, but
most of these are little vignettes or anecdotes. I take her at her word however, as
even in the forward she takes the time to write, that “names and personal
information have been changed to preserve anonymity; in some cases several
people have been condensed into one to make a clearer point.” Also, that she's
recreated many of these encounters from her own memory. One example of this
non-quantifiable research was the story of The Martins, who were “fixed” on the
idea that their son had amazing inherent traits. When he did not get into a
prestigious preschool, his parents practically disowned him, “cooling” towards him
because he was not as special as once thought. This is a good example of the fixed
mindset in action, but it could be entirely fictional, and therefore does not carry the
same weight as her measurable data.
English 1A Honors Reading Test #1 on Tom Lutz’s Doing Nothing
Winter 2012 Question: How do early American forms of the Idler (such as
Franklin, Dennie, Rip Van Winkle, etc.) differ from their English antecedents? Or do
they?
Vicky de Monterey Richoux
The American Idlers took former English definitions of slacking or indolence
to new extremes. Opportunity, resources, and rebellion fueled more dramatic
polarities about work and idleness and behaviors, but in many ways they were more
similar than they would have appreciated.
Joseph Dennie was considered by Lutz to have been “the first truly American
slacker” on his suspension from Harvard for rebellious and insolent behavior. He
was amont the first American lawyers to make writing his profession. He did many
jobs half-heartedly, gaining renown only with “The Lay Preacher,” a copy of which
he submitted from the tavern. He used slacker pseudonyms, as did Johnson and
Mackenzie, his English counterparts in indolence. Also similar to them, at times his
writings used deep irony: The indolent need to be given moral lessons in a form
they are not too indolent to tackle.”
Samuel Johnson, the creator of “The Idler,” first defined the slacker in his
early essays in 1758. Like Dennie, he both exalted and put down idlers. “This
doubleness,” as Lutz calls it, became the main signifier of indolence going
forward. “Everyman is, or wants to be, an Idler,” Johnson wrote. Yet he was proud of
the speed and efficiency of his vast new dictionary. Yet it would have disturbed him
to realize his fraternity with Franklin when he put himself down for his own
indolence in his diary, saying he had “sunk into grosser sluggishness.”
Franklin worked hard and well at many jobs in his early life, finally settling on a
print-shop when he realized how it served to publish his writings. His working life
was very full, but his schedule was self-determined, like that of a dilettante, even
when he produced prodigiously. He espoused the idea of appearing busy over being
busy, and in other ways behaved contrary to the lessons of industry in his own
writings. Upon retirement, he frustrated others with his dissipations, such as
airbaths and dinners, while also pursuing new discoveries in science, particularly
with experiments using electricity.
Dennie’s role as the first American slacker and his writings that preach
industry while he pursues all possible indolence; Johnson’s self-deprecation for
moments of idleness where, as Lutz put it, “he sounds like Franklin in his
Autobiography, not some happy-go-lucky Idler”; and Franklin himself, a prime
example of the polarity and pendulum swing of indolence and focused effort, all
contributed to the modern definitions of work and idleness which Lutz points out
“continue to structure the debates about work.” All their work and writing
revolutionized our thinking about idleness. In these ways, they were more similar
than different.
Tarek Saleh
The derivations of the Idler, inaugurated by Samuel Johnson in 1758 differ
little from each other, an moreover ally themselves in direct contrast to the
Industrial “modern” work ethic. The “otium cum dignitate” (leisure with dignity) so
esteemed in the classical era had been dethroned by the new insistence on “labor for
labor’s sake,” an oxymoron posited by the likes of John Locke and Jeremy
Bentham. “Idleness” thus reveals itself to be a misnomer, instead standing for the
philosophical and intellectual exercise proselytized by the ancients and
subsequently Johnson, Mackenzie, and Dennie, and forgotten by the new status quo
and the industrial renumerative spirit. Indeed the American Idler and his British
counterparts were frighteningly similar, in what would result in a difference in
degree, as opposed to kind. Franklin, especially post-“retirement,” in 1742, would
come to resemble the enlightened “lounger” espoused by the Scottish man of letters,
Henry Mackenzie. Franklin lived an “Epicurean” existence while ensconced in Paris
but at the same time can be said to have been the most productive man there.
Benjamin Franklin, writing in the format of letters to his son, created in his
Autobiography a testament to Weber’s Protestant work ethic. His daily routine
contains little of what can be construed as “leisure,” containing sparse periods of
daily reflection and proactive planning. Coining the adage “time is money,” Franklin
strives towards the conceived apex of “moral perfection” (64). Richard Saunders
(Poor Richard) becomes the mouthpiece in the Almanac, and later, The Way to
Wealth, counseling against an indolent temperament. “Sloth, like rust, consumes
faster than labor wears, while the used key is always bright” (65). This quote
exemplifies this new work ethic, so immersed in an ideology of accumulation, and so
wary of its counterpart, spending. The intrinsic contradiction appears to struggle its
way to the surface, however, as his later life is marked by observed lethargy, and an
emphasis on comfort at the least. John Adams reveals to us his distasted for
Franklin’s gilded lifestyle. Alas, his insistence on the appearance of an assiduous
lifestyle still predominates. Franklin’s contemporary would assemble his legions to
counter-balance this new ideology and the slacker/conformer discourse would
never be the same again.
The Idler was created in England in 1758 by Samuel Johnson and the
consequent American renditions would march to the same tune from then on. The
Idler sought the societal acceptance and conferred value of intellectual rumination
maintained in the pre-industrial era that had so spontaneously jumped ship to join
the ranks of the manufacturing class and its subservient laborer. Johnson would
write that “idling allows one to appreciate life, while striving destroys
appreciation.” This credo would be taken up by Henry Mackenzie in Scotland in
1785, and subsequently Abel Slug in 1788. Though Slug’s insistence that idleness is
the sole pre-requisite for pure, unadulterated pleasure, it does not preclude his
admission to the ranks of the intellectural elite (perceived, Plato’s so-called
philosopher-kings. Where then did the difference form across the pond? Well, they
didn’t.
Joseph Dennie, like his English counterparts, considered himself an
intellectual and after his delayed graduation from Harvard, he would meander from
occupation to occupation in search of his “Medici,” an entity that could appreciate
the ethereal pursuits logged by the brain, as opposed to the hands (transferred
through writing, of course). Idling was thus a cry for the antiquated lifestyle of his
ancestors. It was not inactivity (a distinction pointed out by Chris Paul from
idletheory.com), but a superstrata of intellectual existence. Indeed labor, for profit
wasn’t the goal (save for his predilection for fashion, of course).
Washington Irving waltzes onto the scene at this point. An “apprentice” of sorts of
Dennie, Irving sought to point out the irony inherent in the lounger lifestyle. Rip Van
Winkle, written by “Diedrich Knickerbocker,” and found by “Geoffrey Crayon,” falls
asleep after drinking with several fellows he had aided in transporting a container
of ale. After rising 20 years later, he finds that his wife is dead, and his children have
grown up. He is pleased though very discombobulated. The mere fact however that
he is not disturbed, that his denial of the feverish new work ethic and its advertised
merits allows him to move through life in a lethargic stupor, points to the larger
anti-work ideology. Remuneration for profits sake is not the goal. Admittedly Lutz
puts forth the idea that Irving allows for our discussion and distasted for this
indolent lifestyle, as much as we long for respite from our busy lives.