Anatomy of an Essay in Political Thought

Political theory is a diverse field that incorporates approaches from philosophy, history, empirical political science, literature, and other fields. Most of my teaching is in the history of political thought. The kinds of questions students tackle in my courses tend to be interpretive and evaluative questions. Here’s an example:

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke both offer a picture of the state of nature, of what “men” would be like in the absence of government. Hobbes describes this state as a war of “every man, against every man.” Locke describes the state of nature as a somewhat better condition—one governed by a “law of nature” which distinguishes the state of nature from a “state of licence.” Provide a comparative assessment of these two accounts that considers what might explain the similarities and differences between them. Which account do you find most persuasive, and why? Be sure to clearly articulate your criteria for persuasiveness.

The advice I offer here is geared toward writing a paper that answers these kinds of questions. If you’re in a class with a more philosophical orientation, you might have a look at this delightful guide. If you're in a class that focuses more on historical context, ask your instructor for advice and models.

Argument

Your Paper Must Have an Argument

If your paper lacks a clear and coherent argument, it is not a successful paper. As a reader, one wants to see not only that you understand the material you’re discussing but that you can use, interpret, and evaluate it to make some point of your own.

Interpretation and Evaluation

Interpretation is fundamentally about reconstructing the meaning and logical structure of a thinker’s argument (e.g. what does Rousseau mean when he writes that those who do not obey the general will will be “forced to be free”?). There are four main criteria for determining whether an interpretation is a strong one. These are as follows.

Precise fit: Does the interpretation I’ve offered fit with the specific things that the author writes? If an author argues not-X (e.g. monarchy is not a legitimate form of rule) and my interpretation suggests that the author argues X (e.g. that the author argues monarchy is a legitimate form of a rule), there is a problem of fit.
Complete fit: Does the interpretation I have offered square with what the author writes in the text as a whole? Unless we have very good reasons to believe otherwise, we should assume that authors aimed to be consistent. So, if in interpreting a particular passage, we ascribe positions to them that can’t be easily squared with what they write elsewhere in their work, there is a problem of complete fit. (If you think you do have very good reasons to believe that an author was intentionally inconsistent, you must defend and give evidence for this position in the paper).
Coherence: Is the interpretation I have offered logically consistent? Or, does it contain argumentative gaps or contradictions? Unless we have very good reasons to believe otherwise, we should assume that authors aimed to offer arguments that are logically coherent. The authors you are reading in this course are careful thinkers who spent a lot of time and effort considering and crafting their arguments. If you find yourself attributing incoherent or foolish positions to them, assume that you have misinterpreted them. (If you think you do have very good reasons to believe that an author was incoherent or foolish in his argument, you must defend and give evidence for this position in the paper).
Plausibility: Is the interpretation I have offered plausible? Is it reasonable to expect that the view that I attribute to a thinker is a view that the thinker (knowing what we do about him and his political and intellectual context) could have endorsed? For instance, an interpretation of Machiavelli as a critic of the French Revolution would be “historically absurd” and therefore implausible.

In contrast to interpretation, evaluation is fundamentally about developing a reasoned judgment about the persuasiveness of one or more arguments (e.g. how persuasive do I find Rousseau’s argument that we can be “forced to be free”?). There are various criteria by which you can evaluate the persuasiveness of an argument. The nature of the class that you’re taking, your professor, or the question that you’re answering may provide you with cues. When in doubt, ask.

Here are some examples of criteria one might use to evaluate the persuasiveness of an argument.

Logical consistency: Here, I would be concerned with whether the relevant thinker’s conclusion follows from the premises (validity) and whether the premises themselves are true (soundness). For instance, if I were evaluating the validity of Hobbes’ argument that the state of nature is a state of war, I would ask myself whether the conclusion (SON=SOW) follows from the premises (equality in capacity to kill one another, equality of hope, competition, etc.). If I were evaluating the soundness of Hobbes’ argument that the state of nature is a state of war, I would ask myself whether the premises are true (e.g. is the only rational strategy in Hobbes’ state of nature a strategy of anticipation/preemption?).
Normative force: Here, I would be concerned with how well the relevant thinker’s argument squares with our moral intuitions and values. For instance, if we value the rule of law (i.e. the principle that all citizens—including rulers and law-makers—are subject to the law), we might have good reason to find Hobbes’ account of the rights and powers of the sovereign unpersuasive on these grounds. If I were making this argument, I would want to explain why we should value the rule of law, how Hobbes’ argument for the rights and powers of the sovereign fails to uphold this normative commitment, and why the values that the argument does uphold (e.g. order and stability) are not sufficient compensation for its failure to uphold a commitment to the rule of law.
Practical "implementability": Here, I would be concerned with whether it is possible to put the relevant thinker’s political vision into practice in the “real world.” For instance, if I were evaluating Hobbes’ argument that the only stable solution to the problems of the state of nature is a virtually absolute state, I might ask whether it is possible to implement this solution in the contemporary world. If I concluded that such implementation would be impossible, I might have reason to find Hobbes’ argument unpersuasive on practical grounds. If I were making such an argument, I would want to identify which specific elements of our contemporary world make implementation impossible or prohibitively difficult. I would also want to consider the conditions under which these elements would be subject to change (i.e. I would think about what needs to happen in the world for Hobbes’ solution to be “implementable”).

These are not the only possible criteria for evaluating the persuasiveness of a thinker’s argument. If you get to choose the criteria you will use, be sure to be explicit about which you’re using.

Framing an Argument

A well-framed argument has three main features. First, it is specific. It is difficult to support a broad claim, particularly in a relatively short paper. Specific claims, on the other hand, can be easily supported and provide the reader with useful information. For example:

Broad: Contrary to popular readings, Machiavelli’s Prince can be read as an ethical book.
Specific: While many see Machiavelli’s Prince as an amoral work, a closer analysis reveals an ethical vision that is consequentialist and oriented toward the basic needs of the populace.

Second, a good argument is almost always contestable.* That is, someone should be able to disagree with your claim. If you have a claim about which there could be no disagreement, there is little point in writing a paper to defend it. If you have a contestable claim, defend it well, and anticipate alternative interpretations and counterarguments, your paper will be quite strong.

Not contestable: While the Prince and the Discourses on Livy contain some similarities in their ethical arguments, they are also very different.
Contestable: While the Prince is primarily concerned with the value of maintaining political order and the Discourses on Livy with republican virtue, the two works offer a consistent ethical vision that is consequentialist and oriented toward the basic needs of the populace.

*I say “almost always contestable” because there’s a theoretical possibility that the paper might make a new discovery or offer a “knock-down argument” that no one can logically disagree with. This is so rare that you should probably assume that your argument does not fall into this category. When in doubt, talk it through with your instructor. If you have made a new discovery or found a “knock-down argument,” your instructor will have advice about how to frame it and, eventually, where to send it for publication.

Finally, a sound argument must be reasonable. This does not mean that your argument cannot be shocking or radical. However, it does mean that your argument must be supported with evidence and thoughtful, well-grounded interpretations of that evidence. The reader will see through attempts to contort the evidence to support an unreasonable argument. So, please do not do this.

Introduction

The Purpose of an Introduction

The introduction to your paper is your chance to make a good first impression. You should aim to engage the reader and draw her in to your argument. This is your chance to make the case for the importance of your topic—to tell the reader why she should care about what you are discussing. Your introduction also provides a roadmap to the rest of your paper. You should include a thesis statement that offers your main argument. The introduction should also give the reader a sense of where your paper is going and of its general organization. Finally, the introduction is an opportunity to define any important terms you intend to use. You can restrict these definitions to those terms and concepts that are essential to understanding the central argument. Feel free to define other terms and concepts in the body of the paper, as the need arises.

Writing an Effective Introduction

One of the biggest challenges in writing an introduction is deciding how to begin. It is often useful to open with a sentence that grabs the reader’s attention. You might begin with: an interesting example, a provocative quotation, or a thought-provoking question or puzzle.

On the whole, you should aim to be as direct and clear as possible in your introduction. Some writers find that they can best achieve this when they write their introduction last, after they have a clearer sense of where the paper is going. Others write a tentative introduction and then go back later to make changes to it.

Introductions to Avoid

Here are some types of introductions that you will want to avoid:

The placeholder introduction. Example: The social contract thinkers all have different visions of human nature. Each vision produces a different theory of the purpose of government. This is the kind of introduction written by someone with little to say. It is often vague and exists only to take up space.
The restated question introduction. Example: Hobbes and Locke give different accounts of the purpose of the state. I will compare these accounts and discuss which one I find most persuasive. This introduction merely restates an assigned question. Restating the question in your own words can be an effective strategy. However, it is important that your introduction do more than this. The reader is aware of the assigned questions. What she is really interested in is your response to those questions.
The dictionary definition introduction. Example: The Oxford English Dictionary defines democracy as “government by the whole population”… While it is often useful to define the terms you are using in your paper, the dictionary is not an authoritative source for understanding the meaning of contested terms like ‘democracy’ and ‘liberalism.’ Also, anyone can look up a word in a dictionary. Why not develop your own definition of terms in ways that are attentive to the context of the course and your chosen question?
The ‘human history’ introduction. Example: Since the beginning of human history, people have debated the purpose of the state… This type of introduction makes broad statements about the importance of the topic since the dawn of time. It is often too general and does not connect clearly to the argument. As a general rule, any introduction that you could imagine being read by Redd Pepper (“In a world…”) is likely problematic.
The book report introduction. Example: John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty was first published in 1859. In it, he makes important arguments about individual freedom… We are all familiar with this type of introduction from book reports. Generally, writers resort to this kind of introduction in order to fill space. Unfortunately, it simply tells the reader information that she already knows and fails to articulate an argument.

Body

Elements of a Paragraph

The body of your paper consists of a series of paragraphs which should all play a role in supporting your central argument. Generally, a paragraph in the body of the essay contains several elements.

A main point. The main point of an individual paragraph is often an argument that is part of your paper’s larger claim. Many writers choose to make this main point in the first sentence of the paragraph. Others may make it elsewhere. The important thing is that the reader should not be left wondering what the point of the paragraph is. As a general rule, it is a good idea to make one key point per paragraph.
Evidence. In order to support your point, you will need to offer some evidence. In a political thought course, this evidence will often consist of quoted or paraphrased material from the texts you are discussing. (Be sure to provide the page numbers for quoted or paraphrased material). Sometimes, your evidence may consist of a chain of logical reasoning. (Be sure to indicate when this reasoning is not your own, but rather that of a thinker you are discussing).
Analysis. Your evidence is raw material. It means little without your interpretation and analysis. If you leave your evidence unexplained, you let your reader draw her own conclusions. These conclusions may be very different from those you intend. So, make sure you interpret the evidence you present and explain how it proves the point you are trying to make.
Link back to central argument. Indicate to your reader how the point you have made connects to the paper’s larger claim. This can often be done implicitly or as part of your analysis of the evidence you present. The important thing is to avoid leaving the reader wondering why you included a particular paragraph in your paper.

These are guidelines, rather than strict rules. Not every paragraph needs to contain each of these elements. Some paragraphs may provide elaborations or clarifications of a point previously made. Others may offer important conceptual definitions or distinctions. However, these guidelines provide a useful indication of how to structure many of the body paragraphs in your paper.

Paragraphing and Transitions

Try to keep paragraphs as clear and concise as possible. That said, there is no universal rule on the length of a good paragraph. You should aim to start a new paragraph when you begin a new point. If a given paragraph is longer than one double-spaced page, you should consider whether it actually contains more than one point and could therefore be broken into two paragraphs. If this is not the case, you could also consider whether you have made your point as concisely as possible.

When making a transition from one paragraph to another, aim to make the link between the two paragraphs clear to the reader. How does the idea you are presenting now relate to the point you previously made? Good transitions remind the reader of the underlying organizational logic of your paper. Smooth transitions between paragraphs can often be as easy as using words like “however” and “similarly” and terms like “for example” and “in contrast.” Transitions can occur at the end of one paragraph, the beginning of the following one, or in both places.

Conclusion

The Purpose of a Conclusion

A conclusion is your final word. It is your chance to remind the reader of your argument and why what you have said is important, make a good final impression on your reader, and gesture toward the broader significance of what you have said. However, avoid making any new substantive points related to your thesis. This is an occasion to sum up and reflect.

Writing an Effective Conclusion

In thinking about your conclusion, you may wish to do any or all of the following: think about why your topic is important; tie together the points made in your paper; consider provocative insights you have gained by thinking about the topic; or point to the broader implications of what you have said.

Conclusions to Avoid

Here are some types of conclusions that you will want to avoid.

The ‘that’s that’ conclusion. Example: In conclusion, Machiavelli’s Prince reveals an ethical vision that is consequentialist and oriented toward the basic needs of the populace. This conclusion simply restates the thesis and is often extremely short. It is the kind of conclusion one writes when one can’t think of anything else to say.
The sentimental conclusion. Example: Locke’s influence on the ideas of the American Revolution means that this liberal thinker is truly an American hero. This kind of conclusion relies on sentimental, emotional appeals. It may come from the heart, but it often does not fit with (what one hopes is) the more analytical tone of the rest of the paper.
The ‘and another thing’ conclusion. Example: In addition to being a book with a developed ethical theory, Machiavelli’s Prince is an example of a work that privileges masculine virtues. It is also the first truly modern work of political philosophy and a precursor to many of the methods of explanation used in contemporary political science. This conclusion uses random pieces of information that could not be included in the body of the paper. While it is tempting to include every bit of information you have learned about a given topic, doing this can create confusion in an otherwise well-organized paper.

Bibliography

This page draws upon material from several sources, some of which may be of interest to those wanting further advice on essay writing.

Duke University Writing Studio, “Paragraphing: The MEAL Plan.”

Duke University Writing Studio, “Developing a Central Claim.”

Harvey, Michael. The Nuts and Bolts of College Writing. Indianapolis: Hackett, 2003.

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Writing Center, “Introductions.”

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Writing Center, “Conclusions.”

The section on interpretation and evaluation is drawn from S.A. Lloyd’s Ideals as Interests in Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan: The Power of Mind over Matter (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), chapter 1.