SCSU Summer A 2012 May 21, 2012 - Jun 24, 2012
Professor Pettigrew EN D212 x26778 


PHI 120 01 Ethics

MTWR 10:15am -12:15pm EN B210

Phase III: Written Assignment to be completed in-class during the final day of class.

"A Levinasian Response to Genocide in Rwanda"

This paper will be written during the final class period on Thursday June 21. You will be able to use your readings, and your notes ("open book" - "open notes". You can identify passages in the readings in advance. You can also outline the paper. You cannot, however, write the paper in advance. No electronic devices will be permitted during the class period. If you wish to refer to the Summary of the Judgement of Hassan Ngeze [Hassan Ngeze (ICTR-99-52-T)], for 1-3 points of extra credit, you need to access the document in advance of the assignment, as you make all other preparations for the assignment. Copies of the Judgement will be available in class if you wish to double check your passages. You do not need a works cited page for this in-class essay. Please provide in-text citations in parentheses following the passages you select.

Your paper needs to hand-written and double-spaced.

In this final assignment you are to reflect on the dehumanization and genocide that occurred in Rwanda in 1994. The project for this paper is to reflect on the extent to which Levinas offers an ethical thought that is uniquely appropriate for an age (our age) in which genocide has occurred so frequently.

The first section of the paper will be the introduction. The first section of the paper will be the introduction. You will a generally introductory sentences or sentences, sentences delineating the parts and a thesis statement.

In the second section of the paper discuss the phenomonen of the social construction of the other. In Rwanda, the social construction of otherness takes place in two movements. The first involves the historical conditions of the catastrophe through "Race Science" [John Hanning Speke (1863)] and colonialism [first German (1897), and then Belgian (1918)]. The Hutus, in particular, were demeaned by "Race Science," as inferior to the more "Caucasoid" Tutsis, but the Tutsis were also constructed or objectified by this process. When the Belgians arrived they worked to confirm the assertions of "Race Science" by measuring cranial capacities and nose size (G 55). Recall that, subsequently, in 1933, the Belgians conducted a census as a prelude to issuing Hutu and Tutsi identity cards. (G 56) By then, Gourevitch writes-- "the Belgians had made 'ethnicity' the defining feature of Rwandan existence" (G 57). The second movement begins with political Independence from Colonialism in 1962 (G 61).Then, for the next thirty-two years, the Hutus (85% of the population) began to reverse the terms of the social construction by breeding contempt and hatred of the Tutsis through demonizing propaganda and hate speech [e.g., RTLM Radio (see G 114-115) and the Kangura Newspaper]. The Interahamwe ("those who attack together") was formed as a means to carry out the eventual genocide. With the assassination of President Habyarimana in early April 1994, the Hutu Power elite gave the signal for the Army and the Interahamwe to begin the genocide (G 113). One could infer that while the genocide was taking place,it continued apace due to the fact that the international diplomatic community failed to respond effectively. In this section then, you are to consider the extent to which the objectification of the ethnic groups, an objectification begun by colonial race science, measurements and identity cards (first movement), and then continued by Hutu propaganda and hate speech (second movement), led to dehumanization and genocide. Further, in this section (or in a new, separate section, if you prefer) provide pertinent detail regarding the human suffering, including the pace and ferocity of the genocide (G 133) as well as personal accounts/stories from the book or the film. Make direct reference (extract passages and provide page numbers) to Philip Gourevitch's book, We wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families: Stories from Rwanda. Also, refer, with the greatest specificity possible, to the film Hotel Rwanda. However, whether or not the discussion of the human suffering resulting from the genocide is in the second section or in its own section, your paper needs to make clear that the pace and ferocity of the genocide are the result of the dehumanizing objectification of the other. A critical appreciation of this causal relation is crucial to our understanding of this and other genocides.

In the third section of the paper discuss Levinas's ethical thinking in comprehensive detail. Discuss Levinas's concept of "the face" as an ethical relation. Consider especially the extent to which the face escapes objectification: "It is what cannot become a content, which your thought would embrace; it is uncontainable, it leads you beyond" (L 86-87, my emphasis). Consider the extent to which this escape from objectification is a "rupture" for Levinas, a rupture that would interrupt any dehumanizing objectification. Rather than an ethics based on universality or totality – a universal law or an overarching system-- Levinasian ethical thought emphasizes one's singular responsibility for the Other. Indeed, for Levinas, responsibility provides the very structure of subjectivity. (L 95) In this apparently paradoxical sense, subjectivity is not for itself, but "for the other" (L 96, my emphasis). We are, as Levinas states, "hostage" to the other through this structure of subjectivity as responsibility. Our responsibility for the other is nonreciprocal. (L 98) We always, as Levinas insists, have one more responsibility to attend to as we are subject to the face and call of the Other. We are responsible for responsibility itself.

In the fourth and concluding section of the paper consider the extent to which Levinas offers an ethical approach that is uniquely appropriate for an age in which genocide has occurred so frequently. Further, specifically, reflect on the extent to which Levinasian thought offers a resource for the interruption of the dehumanizing objectification that led to genocide in Rwanda.

This paper will be written during the final class period on Thursday June 21. You will be able to use your readings, and your notes ("open book" - "open notes". You can identify passages in the readings in advance. You can also outline the paper. You cannot, however, write the paper in advance. No electronic devices will be permitted during the class period. If you wish to refer to the Summary of the Judgement of Hassan Ngeze [Hassan Ngeze (ICTR-99-52-T)], for 1-3 points of extra credit, you need to access the document in advance of the assignment, as you make all other preparations for the assignment. Copies of the Judgement will be available in class if you wish to double check your passages. You do not need a works cited page for this in-class essay. Please provide in-text citations in parentheses following the passages you select.

Your paper needs to hand-written and double-spaced.

Documenting your sources. Most students state that they prefer to use, or are accustomed to using MLA format for citing sources. Therefore, the philosophy department recommends the following web site for reference to MLA format. (When you arrive at that site, click on "Documenting Sources" on the left side of the screen.) Please let me know if you have trouble accessing the site or if you have any questions. As an alternative that you may want to consider, here is a link to the Chicago style. However, for this final in-class essay you are not required to provide a works cited page.