Answer all the questions. All questions count equally. Turn in your answers to me (in my office or my department mailbox) in typed/printed/neatly handwritten form by 4 p.m. on Monday, October 13.
Limit your answers to the word limits shown at the end of each question. (Note: 500 words is about 1.5 standard-format pages.) These limits are for your and my protection, so you won't feel driven to write a dissertation and I won't have to read one. You need not reach the stated number of words in order to provide an excellent answer (or to get an excellent grade). As a matter of fact, I have built some slack into the word limits, so your reaching the word limit may make me think your answer worse rather than better.
Please follow these standards:
What is the last name of the instructor of this course? (Limit: 500 words)
Compare and contrast Beard's view of the power structure that gave rise to the Constitution and Hunter's view of the power structure in Atlanta. There is the obvious difference that Beard studies a national elite and Hunter studies a local elite, but besides that, to what extent do they have similar (and different) views of how an elitist power structure works. If you need to, feel free to include material from Federalist #10. (Note: this is not a hint that you ought to.) (Limit: 500 words)
Similarities: Both Hunter and Beard believe that elites
Differences: Beard vs. Hunter:
A major theoretical problem in the analysis of power is the problem of anticipated reactions — the idea that although the elite look powerful, they are in fact constrained by their fear that an improper decision will cause the masses to rise up, mobilize their "slack power", and throw the elite out of power. To what extent does Hunter's research deal with this problem? In other words, suppose I approached Hunter and said, "Your work completely neglects the possibility of anticipated reactions and slack power." What could he reply? In your answer, don't give me your subjective opinion about whether you think anticipated reactions were a factor; confine yourself to identifying explicit passages or data in Hunter's book that bear on the question. Be sure to cite where those passages or data appear. (Limit: 500 words of your own prose, plus any quotes or data you want to include.)
See pp.4, 46-47, 129, 152, 161, 208, 213, 224, 225, 228, 229, 230, 231, 247
I forgot to add to this the final question, "To what extent does this undercut his claim that there's an elite?"
Amidst all the illogic and rhetorical tricks in Cantwell's book, what is the best argument that can be made for his position that a person or people within the U.S. government plotted to produce a disease that would kill gays and blacks and then administered it via a vaccine? Confine yourself to the information that Cantwell actually provides. If you must make inferences (when Cantwell is vague about the information), state what they are. Remember: your task is to make the best argument you can for Cantwell, not to prove his argument correct. Also: you will be tempted to note all the problems with his argument; please don't. This question is about why he's right, not why he's wrong. (Limit: 500 words of your own prose, plus any quotes or data you want to include.)
The University of Minnesota is an
equal opportunity educator and employer.
Copyright © 2003 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.