IAH206 Sen’s claims and Keneally’s evidence/illustration
IAH 206
“WRITING ASSIGNMENT” #1: Sen’s claims and Keneally’s evidence/illustration
The goal of this writing assignment is to have you think as carefully as you can about
(1)
some part of Sen’s line of thought in relation to famines, and
(2)
the evidence for (or illustration of) that in Keneally’s depiction of the
famines that he looks at
One task (concerning (1) above) will be to be as clear as you can about the Sen’s
thesis that you want to focus on. This will involve both
(a)
choosing one of the three listed below (DETAIL ON SEN’S CLAIMS)
and
(b)
examining this claim carefully and deciding precisely how to state it.
The other task will be to find descriptions in the Keneally book that bear on that
thesis. I use this generic phrase “bear on”, because you are allowed to go either of
two different directions with this. You may find facts or events in Keneally’s
narrative that “support” or “give evidence IN FAVOR OF” Sen’s claim, OR you may
find facts or events in Keneally’s narrative that are in conflict with or “give evidence
AGAINST” Sen’s claim. Either is OK; be sure to be clear WHICH of these you are
doing.
Note: Be sure to SAY WHY the facts or events that you find in Keneally count for or
against Sen’s claim.
The things you take from Keneally can be from anywhere in that text. But note that
it shouldn’t just be, for instance, Keneally saying that he agrees with Sen. Rather,
you should be citing evidence for or against Sen’s thesis based on what Keneally
says happened as a matter of historical fact.
Here’s a good background thing to have in mind: Show that you’ve given the matter
some thought, by finding events or facts in Keneally that are especially interesting or
significant, that perhaps let you see things in a new light. In general, try to show your
understanding of the Keneally book or the themes of the course as a whole so far. Citations are required; quotations are not.
Quotations, if you have them, should not be long, and they don’t count toward the word count. (See general description of the writing
assignments on the syllabus.)
Citations: I wouldn’t expect you to use any sources outside of the class readings.
Certainly you do have to cite Sen’s chapter from the course pack, and also the Keneally
book. (You might find that it is useful to cite something else from the course readings,
but this is not required.) The style for doing the citations? You can just cite the page
number in the following way: (Keneally, p. X).
DETAIL ON SEN’S CLAIMS: Sen says (and argues for) a number of interrelated claims,
and it’s useful to distinguish them. I’ve listed 3 here, and for this paper, I want you to
CHOOSE ONE of these
to think about:
a.
Sen’s claim about the significance of democracy for famine
b.
Sen’s claim about the role of “entitlement” in the causation of
famine
c.
Sen’s claim about how famine is NOT properly seen as the result of
an imbalance between the size of the population and the size of the
food supply
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS (from syllabus):
Recall from the syllabus that these responses should range between 300 and 400
words. (Write your response in a word processor before putting it online to get an
accurate word count). Copied or quoted material
will not
count toward the word limit on
discussion posts (e.g. If you copy a block of text and put it a post as a quote, you still
need to write at least 300 words that is your own work.)
As noted on the syllabus, these will be graded according to the following scale:
Exceeds Expectations: A post that is on topic and that makes an especially perceptive
and constructive set of observations, comments or critiques: 40 Points.
Achieves Expectations well: A post that is clear, thoughtful, on topic and clearly relevant
to the topic at hand: 38 points.
Good: A post that is clearly on topic: 35 points.
Satisfactory: A post that is
“in the ballpark”, but not quite sufficiently clear and/or
relevant. 30 points.
Minimally Acceptable: At least 300 words and basically coherent (and not shown to
involve plagiarism (see
“Academic Integrity”)). 20 points
Otherwise: Unacceptable. 0 poin
