ENG 102 020
Andrew Battista
Summer 2008
Unit Two – Science and the Engaged Citizen
“After witnessing hundreds of ordinary persons submit to the authority in our own experiments, I must conclude that
[Hannah] Arendt’s conception of the banality of evil comes closer to the truth than one might desire to imagine […]
ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a
terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and
they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have
the resources needed to resist authority.”
—Stanley Milgram, “The Perils of Disobedience”
In this unit, we will consider the relationship between scientific authority and our role as citizens.
Stanley Milgram’s famous experiment serves as an ideal point of departure for questions
concerning our willingness to obey authorities and surrender the ideals of basic individual and
community rights in exchange for “progress” and technology. With Milgram in mind we can ask,
what is our role as an engaged citizen in a culture that invariably places the ideals of scientific
progress on a pedestal? Under what conditions should we dissent, and how? In what ways has
science altered our relationship to the environment that surrounds us? Our readings and essay
will help us to consider the stakes of these complex questions.
Unit Two Essay Assignment: Disobedience and the Authority of Science
The second essay asks you to consider one of the most deeply-entrenched narratives in our culture:
the value of scientific progress. It seems most people see scientific progress as essential, inevitable,
or even a natural process of our species’ evolution. As Stanley Milgram’s experiment indicates, most
ordinary people will do almost anything when they believe that their resistance will hinder scientific
research. Yet could it be, as events from our distant and recent past demonstrate, that scientific
progress is not uniformly a good thing, but rather, in a variety of ways, profoundly destructive?
To write this essay, you must identify an instance or a cultural moment that you can use to frame your
discussion about the abstract concepts in question, progress and disobedience. After choosing an
instance, you are invited to explain how it involves questions concerning scientific progress and
technology, and you are especially encouraged to incorporate issues that have significant
consequences concerning the well-being of our communities. Perhaps some of the following
questions will catalyze your thinking:
 How has science changed the way we relate to nature?
 What role does the ideal of scientific progress hold in our culture? What specific examples
reinforce your notion of how our culture typically values science?
 How can we formulate an ethic of resistance toward the institutional status quo that is validated
by science? When is this appropriate?
 When is scientific progress positive, and when is it dangerous?
 Why can’t (or don’t) people disobey authorities? Is it harder or easier to disobey a scientific
authority?
To bolster your discussion, please integrate the main themes and concepts from at least two of
the reading we’ve discussed during this sequence. As in the first essay, our readings and class
discussions should inform your articulation of the issues at stake.
The final draft of your essay will be a minimum of seven full pages (nine pages maximum) of
double-spaced typewritten text; essays falling short of this length will automatically earn a “re-
ENG 102 020
Andrew Battista
Summer 2008
2
write” and will not be read. In addition to your informed discussions of our primary reading
selections, you are strongly encouraged to incorporate additional well-selected secondary sources
into your analysis. Examples of such secondary sources might range from traditional print and
online articles to personal interviews or advertisements, which indicate shared cultural beliefs.
Use 12-point double spaced Times New Roman font and maintain default MS Word margins.
Refer to the St. Martin’s Handbook p. UK 7 - UK 11 for grading criteria, and also consider the
rubric of successful essay traits that we’ve developed in class as a grading guideline. Citations,
both in-text and the Works Cited page, must adhere to the MLA style format. Important: a draft
of the essay is due when you meet with me for the first conference (on July 2-3), a second rough
draft is due in class Tuesday, July 8 in class for peer review, and the final draft is due at the start
of class Monday, July 14.
Reading Schedule
Week One
Date
June 26 (Thu)
June 27 (Fri)
Assigned Reading
“The Perils of Obedience.”
Stanley Milgram, EC p. 119-27
“Got Silk.” Lawrence Osborne
(handout)
Miscellaneous Reading
Assignment Due
Conversation
paper
Conversation
paper
Miscellaneous Reading
Sentences – St. Martin’s
p. 587-591, 695-700
Research – St. Martin’s
p. 222-248
Assignment Due
Topic proposal
due
Week Two
Date
June 30 (Mon)
July 1 (Tue)
July 2 (Wed)
July 3 (Thu)
July 4 (Fri)
Assigned Reading
Class meets in W.T. Young
Library
“Swine of the Times” Nathaneal
Johnson, EC p. 69-81
Conversation
paper
No Class – Academic Holiday (Independence Day)
Week Three
Date
July 7 (Mon)
Assigned Reading
“Civil Disobedience,” Henry
David Thoreau EC p. 175-180
Miscellaneous Reading
July 8 (Tue)
July 9 (Wed)
July 10 (Thu)
July 11 (Fri)
Assignment Due
Conversation
paper
Rough draft – peer
review in class
Peer review
Inclusive language –
St. Martin’s p. 511-18
Class cancelled - conferences
Week Four
Date
July 14 (Mon)
Assigned Reading
“Faustian Economics: Hell
Hath No Limits.” Wendell Berry
(handout)
Miscellaneous Reading
Assignment Due
Essay due in class