A Virtue-based Approach To Essay Writing

Essay marking in humanities subjects is often compartmentalised by exam boards into an evaluation of the author`s `Knowledge` (A01) and `Understanding` (A02). First, an essay is judged on the author`s ability to show how much she can recall and reproduce what she has learnt. Second, the essay is evaluated according to the author`s understanding of the key issues raised and her ability to make sense of it all. While these are useful enough, I believe a different approach may be more practical for identifying weaknesses in essays. In my experience tutoring Philosophy and Religious Studies A-level students, essays typically fall short in one of three ways. They either lack clarity, precision, or dynamism, or a combination of the three.

Clarity is the foundation upon which a good essay is built. In the introductory paragraph, it is crucial that the writer addresses any potential ambiguity in the question, gives some account of the question`s key terms, and briefly identifies the controversies that will be explored in the essay. An example of this taken from a Philosophy A level question: ``Human nature is such that political authority is necessary`. Evaluate this claim.` First, the writer should note points of ambiguity: what kind of political authority is implied to be necessary? Is there just one account of human nature or several? Second, the writer should give some precision to the vagueness of the main terms `I consider `human nature` to refer to those aspects of human beings that are fixed and incapable of change`. `I consider `necessary` in this case to imply that human beings cannot, in fact, live together without some form of political authority`. Third, the writer should give some indication of the controversies that will be discussed in the essay in particular, the clashing perspectives of anarchists who advocate the abolition of political authority and authoritarian thinkers who affirm its indispensability, as well as those who differ on what kind of political authority is necessary (e.g. conservatives and liberals).

Once the writer has given the big picture in the introduction, the following paragraph offers an opportunity to get into some detail. If the introduction gives the skeleton of the essay, the following paragraph gives the flesh. Here the writer should give the clearest possible statement of the `thesis` under dispute and the reasons given for it. In this case the `thesis` is clearly stated `Human nature is such that political authority is necessary`. The writer should give an account of why some believe this to be true. In particular, what aspects of `human nature` (commonly understood) would imply that political authority is necessary? Are there historical precedents which could be used to support this view? Once the case for the thesis has been made, in as much detail as possible, the last remaining fault of essays is their lack of dynamism.

A `dynamic` essay is one which reads as an unfolding dialogue between competing points of view. Students often draw up a `PRO` and `CON` list detailing the disadvantages and advantages of holding a particular view. However, an essay is not an account of these disadvantages and advantages considered in isolation from each other a mere tally of good and bad points where the `winner` is the one with more of the former. The best essays get the PROs and CONs to have a conversation with each other. For example, some might argue that humans are typically fearful and deferential to authority, so they require an overbearing political authority to make them feel secure (Thomas Hobbes). However, others such as Karl Marx contend that this supposedly universal `human nature` isn`t that instead, it is a mere by-product of living under the very political authority that it is intended to justify. On this view, human nature doesn`t legitimate political authority because the account of causation is precisely backwards. However, others from the biological sciences claim that this denial of fixed and immutable aspects of `human nature` flies in the face of the latest scientific research (Steven Pinker, The Blank Slate). As a result, Marx`s view is untenable. And so on.

This way of approaching essay writing gives the reader a better sense of a single thread running throughout. As such, when the conclusion is reached it is far easier to connect everything back together. The thesis can be repeated and then either rejected, accepted, or modified in light of the previous discussion.