How to Write a Good Interpretive Essay in Political Philosophy

Developing Your Topic

A good interpretive essay in political philosophy is not a summary of what is
obvious in what the author says. It is not even—at least not primarily—a defense
of some theory of your own about the text. It is rather an exploration of an
important, puzzling question about the meaning of the text. It proceeds through
open-minded and serious inquiry to an answer that may be more or less tentative
but that is never dogmatic. It seeks to understand an author as the author
understood himself, in a spirit that is both sympathetic and probing. The aim is to
shed light on the text by following the author’s own indications about what is
important and what must be considered for a full understanding of a problem.
If you are asked to write on an assigned topic, begin by asking, “Why is this
question important? What makes it difficult?” If you are asked to choose your
own topic, ask, “What is it in this work that especially intrigues or perplexes or
troubles me?” Look for a question that is fundamental, but frame it in a way that
is manageable within the assigned page limit.
Then ask, “What subordinate questions do I need to ask to answer this question
well?” If you have not been assigned a specific passage to write on, identify the
section or sections of the text most relevant to your question. Read the
passage(s) you will focus on very carefully, multiple times. Ask yourself, “What is
puzzling or obscure here? What is the author up to? What are the premises of
this argument, stated and unstated? What are its stated and unstated
conclusions? What objections could be raised, and how might the author answer
them? Is there anything one would have expected him to say that he is not
saying, and what is the significance of that silence? What rhetorical strategy
might he be employing here, and for what purpose?”
Pay special attention to your own perplexity whenever it arises. Plato likens the
enterprise of philosophy to a hunt, and on that hunt, it is your own puzzlement,
carefully attended to, that puts you on the tracks of the quarry. Simply being able
to state clearly what is perplexing or problematic or seemingly contradictory
about a passage or an argument is one of the most important steps you can take.
Now, for each of your questions, formulate possible hypotheses. Gather specific
evidence in the text for (and possibly against) each one.

Making an Outline
Once you have defined a central and several subordinate questions, gathered
your ideas, and made notes on each, decide on the order in which you want to
pursue these questions. Which is most basic, or most in need of addressing
before you can proceed to the others? How can you arrange your questions and
ideas so that each leads naturally to the next and lays the necessary groundwork
for what is to follow? One perfectly acceptable procedure is simply to trace an
argument of the author’s step by step, in the order in which he gives it. Then part
of your work is to show why the order makes sense, and why each of his
questions naturally arises from what has come before.
Now fill out your outline with the arguments and evidence from the text that you
will use to address each question. As you do so, you will probably realize that the
order needs revising. That is not a problem; it is part of the process of good
writing. You may also realize that you have taken on too much for a short, tightly
focused paper, and you need to jettison some material. Again, this is a common
discovery for disciplined writers and is not a sign that you have done anything
wrong.

Choosing a Title
It should be immediately clear from your title what the paper will be about. If your
professor has given you several prompts to choose from, the title should make
clear which one you are writing on. A clever, attention-grabbing title is good if you
can think of one that also makes your topic clear, but the important thing is that
the title be informative.

The Introductory Paragraph

This paragraph has serious work to do. It needs to show three things: what you
are setting out to explore, why it matters, and why it is puzzling or difficult. You
may also wish in other ways to set the stage or give background information, but
the main task is to whet your reader’s interest. Nothing is more boring than the
sweeping generalizations and dictionary definitions with which inexperienced
writers often begin essays. It is true that reading your essay is part of your
professor’s job, but you want him or her to begin your paper in a spirit of intrigued
anticipation rather than one of gloomy resignation.

The Flow of Paragraphs and Ideas

Stating the point of each paragraph ahead of time in a topic sentence can make
for a wooden effect, but every paragraph needs to have a single subject, and that
subject needs to be clear by the end of the second sentence if not the first. Each
paragraph, and each sentence within the paragraph, should flow naturally out of
what comes before and prepare the reader for what is coming next.
Make liberal use of connective words and phrases as signposts to alert the
reader to the direction in which your argument is moving. If you are qualifying a
previous point, use expressions such as “yet,” “but,” “still,” “on the other hand,”
and “however.” Are you offering additional support for something? Use
expressions such as “moreover,” “besides,” “what is more,” and “in addition.” Are
you drawing a conclusion? Use such terms as “thus,” “therefore,” “hence,” “it
follows that,” and “we may conclude that.” Are you discussing the most important
point in a section? Use expressions such as “above all” and “most importantly,”
so that the reader sits up and takes notice.
Your conclusion in a short paper should be short as well. If possible, it should in
a few sentences both draw together your main thoughts and present some new
and interesting idea about their significance.

Being Precise
One of the most common defects of mediocre essays is vagueness and
imprecision in language. Such essays often read as if their authors were tossing
fuzzy objects in the general direction of each idea without taking the time to
figure out exactly what they mean to say. If you aren’t sure what you mean, your
instructor never will be either. Discipline yourself to ask, as you write each
sentence, “Do I know exactly what I have in mind here and am I saying exactly
what I mean?” If you can’t find the right word for what you want to say, keep
thinking until you find it, or consult a dictionary or thesaurus.
Stay close to the text, both by using frequent citation of it and by using the same
language the author uses. If the author is writing about a polis, use the word
“polis” or “city” and avoid alien terms like “state.” Never use words like “values” (a
hopelessly vague term in common parlance) or “lifestyle” when discussing
classical or early modern authors. Try as much as you can to frame the issues
using the author’s own categories.

Using Quotations
The frequent use of short quotations to anchor your argument in the text is
important, but giving the source of each in a footnote is repetitive and distracting.
A good practice is to provide one footnote for each book you are citing, giving the
editor and translator, if any, and then to place subsequent citations in your text.
Learn the correct form for footnotes and use it. Here is an example.1 In
subsequent citations, you need only supply enough information to allow the
reader to find the passage you are citing. How much is necessary varies with the
context. Standard page and line numbers of ancient texts such as Plato's and
Aristotle's were established long ago, and are indicated in the margins of the
editions you read. A reference to Plato might read, for example: (Plato, Republic
336a), or if the context is clear, simply: (336a). Modern texts often are divided
into small numbered sections, as in: (Locke, Second Treatise, sec. 58). For texts
that are divided only into chapters, you should provide chapter and page
numbers in your citations, as in: (Hobbes, Leviathan, chap. 11, p. 59), but again,
if the paper is only on the Leviathan, (chap. 11, p. 59) is sufficient. Citations in
the text precede the final period of the sentence, but citations given at the end of
block quotes come after the final period. Note also that in referring to the title of a
work, you may include or drop the initial “the,” depending on the context. The
Republic and Plato’s Republic are both acceptable, but Plato’s The Republic
should be avoided.

1Plato, Apology of Socrates, in Four Texts on Socrates, translated with notes by

T. G. West and G. S. West (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1984), 37e-38a,
p. 92.
It requires some time and effort to learn to integrate quotations into your writing
so that the results flow smoothly. When you include a short quotation within a
sentence of your own, it must fit grammatically within that sentence. If pronouns
within the quotation refer to a noun you are not quoting, you must make their
antecedents clear. Here is how a second or subsequent reference to Xenophon’s
Education of Cyrus might stand, with its citation:
Xenophon said of Cyrus that he was willingly obeyed by many “who knew quite
well that they would never see him” (1.1.3).
Quotations of longer than two lines of poetry or about four lines of prose should
be set off and indented. Here is how a quotation in a paper on Plato’s Apology
might stand:
For if I say that this is to disobey the god and that because of this it is
impossible to keep quiet, you will not be persuaded by me, on the ground that
I am being ironic. And on the other hand, if I say that this even happens to be
the greatest good for a human being—to make speeches every day about
virtue and the other things about which you hear me conversing and
examining myself and others—and that the unexamined life is not worth living
for a human being—you will be persuaded by me still less when I say these
things. (37e-38a)
Note that no ellipsis points are needed before or after any quotation: by definition
a quotation is an extract from a longer work. Ellipsis points used to mark words
you have omitted within a sentence should be preceded and followed by spaces;
they are not enclosed in parentheses or brackets. Thus, citing a portion of the
passage above, you might write: “If I say that this is to disobey the god . . . you
will not be persuaded” (37e).
For more information on the use of quotations, see The Chicago Manual of Style.

Proofreading
After you have finished a first draft, print it and read it aloud. Is each thought and
is the sequence of thoughts perfectly clear and logical? Are your arguments well
anchored in the text? Does every sentence say exactly what you mean? Does
every word pull its weight, or can you be more concise? Have you used any
jargon or fuzzy abstractions where more fresh, vivid, or concrete terms are
possible? Have you used any passive constructions that you can change to the
active voice? Have you kept one verb tense wherever possible? (It is usually best
to use present tense in theoretical papers, reserving the past tense for
statements of historical fact.) Is the referent of every pronoun clearly identified,
and does the noun match the pronoun in number? Have you avoided comma
splices, run-on sentences, dangling modifiers, and split infinitives? (If you don’t
know what these errors are, you probably are committing them.) Do you know
and have you followed the rules for using commas and other punctuation?
Finally, are you absolutely sure the documentation and any quotations in the
paper are handled correctly?
Recommended Reference Works (all available in multiple editions)
Strunk, William and E. B. White, The Elements of Style.
Trimble, John, Writing with Style.
University of Chicago Press Staff, The Chicago Manual of Style.
________, A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations.