MMW 15 Study Guide - Final Guide: May Fourth Movement, John Maynard Keynes, Sun Yat-Sen
13 Jun 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
CAPE evaluations: I encourage all of you to fill out the CAPE evaluations, which both provide useful
feedback, especially in the comment section, and are incorporated into the faculty review process, so the
university really wants to know what students think! To incentivize students to fill out the evaluations, if
we reach an 85% completion rate, we will add 2 points to everyone’s final exam.
Study Guide for the Final Exam
The exam will have three parts:
Part I will be identifications of terms/concepts (pick 5 of 8): 4 points each (20 pts, 35 minutes)
Part II will be two short essay questions covering discrete themes (pick 2 of 4, one from each half of
the century): 20 points each (40 pts, 70 minutes)
Part III will be a cumulative essay question: 40 points (70 minutes)
Part I: Identifications: Eight of the following terms/ideas/concepts will appear on the exam, and you
will have to write about five of them.
On the exam you will have to: a) briefly identify or define the term/person/text (1 sentence)
b) relate it as specifically and concretely as you can to the larger theme in parenthesis. (2-3
sentences)
Here is an example: “The May 4th movement was a mass protest in China that began when the news
arrived in China that the Paris Peace Treaties had given German-controlled territory to Japan instead of
back to China. It represents the contradictions of the Enlightenment project when applied to the colonial
world, and how the west didn’t apply principles of national self-determination in the empire. It also
illustrates how those contradictions mobilized nationalist opposition, in this case Mao Tse Tung. Finally,
it demonstrates how World War I was a major turning point in opening the “crisis of meaning” outside
the west as well as inside.”
“Dulce et Decorum est” (and the “crisis of meaning”)
The May 4th Movement (China) (vs. the Paris Peace Treaties)
Freud’s Unconscious (vs. the Enlightenment project)
The “Unknown Citizen” (and “mass society”)
John Maynard Keynes (and the “economic crisis of meaning””
Lenin’s “Insurrection as an Art” (and the new face of Marxism)
Sun Yat Sen’s “Three Principles of the People” (and anti-colonial nationalism in China)
Gleichshaltung (and Totalitarianism)
Gandhi’s Satyagraha (and anti-colonial nationalism in India)
The Agrarian program (and anti-colonial nationalism in Mexico)
Mishima’s Patriotism (and Japanese nationalism)
Nazi “lebensraum” (and the fascist world order)
“Waiting for Godot” (and existentialism)
Henry Luce’s “The American Century” (and the US world mission in the Cold War)
Manhattan Project (vs. laissez faire science)
Nkrumah’s Neo-colonialism (and the obstacles to third world development)
Chen Village (and the trade-offs of the communist path to development)
“Soft” authoritarian capitalist model (and the trade-offs for development)
Jim Crow laws (and quality vs. formal or functional democracy)
Chipko Women’s Movement (and “resistance in everyday life”)
The “Iron law of economic development” (and Nigeria’s unconsolidated democratic capitalism)
Islamic fundamentalism (and anti-neo-colonialism)
The “Gaia Hypothesis” (and globalization)
Part II: Of the following essays, four will appear on the exam (two from each group), and you will
have to answer one from each group. You must write an essay that combines a coherent
framework with detail from lectures and reference to at least two readings. All the questions
require you to think about your position on broader debates about the 20th century, such as the
“crisis of meaning” and the “struggle over democracy.” While the question asks you to “take a
position” in these debates, be careful not to let your essay degenerate into an opinionated tirade
that neglects specific events, texts and information. Conversely, don’t forget to take a position and
frame your essay so that it is more than a list of things that you know.
Group I (Pre-1945)
1.During the first half of the 20th century, there were several important turning points that either opened,
exacerbated, or closed the “crisis of meaning” regarding the “Enlightenment Project.” Pick one of these
three turning points— World War I, the Depression, World War II— and analyze its relationship to the
crisis of meaning. Identify the key features and consequences of the event that either opened, exacerbated
or closed that crisis. For readings, you may draw on Freud and Owen for WWI, Terkel and Keynes for
the Depression, Aritimoto (“Coming Race War”) and the Holocaust reading for World War II, or any
other readings you find relevant. In framing your essay, make an argument as to what specific aspect of
the event had the most powerful impact on the “crisis of meaning.”
2.One of the most important categories of attacks on the Enlightenment project brought into question the
principles of rationality, objectivity and certainty that are its foundation. Pick two of the following
(Freud, Lippman, Dadaism, Futurism, or Theatre of the Absurd/Godot, even though it is post-45) and
analyze how they undermine, directly or indirectly, the basic principles on which liberal democracy relies.
In your conclusion, decide whether you see these critiques as the product of a specific crisis of meaning
that has closed or whether they raise doubts and questions that remain relevant in the “struggle over
democracy” today.
3. In the context of the political “crisis of meaning” of the Enlightenment project in the first half of the
20th century, choose two revolutionary leaders whose readings we read (Gandhi, Sun Yat Sen, Hitler,
Mao, Zapata, Lenin and Mussolini) and who led movements that challenged aspects of the Enlightenment
project’s goals, its methods and its priorities and proposed alternative frameworks for political
organization. Compare and contrast their critiques and alternative frameworks and make an argument
about whether they were only relevant in their own time and place or whether they exposed real
weaknesses in the Enlightenment project political framework. In your conclusion, draw out the
implications of your argument for the political “crisis of meaning.”
Group II (Post-1945)
1.The end of WWII ushered in a new world order defined by the Cold War. Identify the main new
features of this Cold War world order, in terms of political systems, competing world missions, the key
players and global power distribution and make an argument about which feature of the Cold War order
had the most negative impact on the “struggle over democracy” in the second half of the 20th century and
why. In your conclusion, identify what you see as the most important lesson we can learn from the Cold
War in the 21st century “struggle over democracy.” For readings, draw on (at least 2) Luce, NSC68,
Churchill and Eisenhower, or any other readings from the era of the Cold War that you find relevant.
2. Since Japan successfully implemented the “authoritarian development model” to achieve the major
goals of political stability, economic development and socially inclusive growth, some would argue that it
is the model best suited to the “catch up” challenges of poor third world nations. Write an essay that
supports, rejects or qualifies this claim. Choose three criteria on which you base your argument and then
draw on evidence from the results of (at least) two case studies and models which we have analyzed,
including China (communist), India (democratic capitalist), Japan and Nigeria (democratic capitalist), to
make your case. For readings, depending on which cases you choose, draw on (at least 2) Sen, Chen
Village, Mandela and Dore, in addition to any other readings you find relevant.
3. Since WWII, the struggle over democracy in the “first world” has extended beyond formal or
functional democratic systems to debate the nature of a “high quality” democracy. Explain the distinction
between these levels of democratic institutionalization and the different issues at stake. Draw on the civil
rights movement, the student movement and the women’s movements to analyze how race, gender and
participatory democracy shaped the debates over democratic practice in the 20th century. For readings,
draw on (at least 2) King, Dylan, the Port Huron Statement and Friedan, in addition to any other readings
you find relevant. In your conclusion, make a case for continuity, rupture or evolution in terms of the
debates over the quality of first world democracies from the 1960s to the 21st century.
Part III: The following cumulative essay will appear as written on the exam. Its purpose is to get
you to formulate your own conclusions on the major themes of the course AND to marshal
convincing evidence to back up your claim. There are no right or wrong answers to this question,
only strong or weak answers, depending on the coherence of the framework and the effectiveness of
the examples and evidence presented. Try to avoid both vague opinion pieces and narrow factual
narratives and reach for a balance of creative thinking and rigorous documentation.
Over the course of the quarter, the central theme of this course has been the “struggle over democracy”,
seen not only as the struggle to constitute democratic rule as the global norm, but also as the struggle over
what constitutes an ideal democratic state and society. Instead of a linear evolution, the struggle to
establish a democratic world order over the past century has been complicated by direct challenges,
obstacles, un-comfortable trade-offs, contradictions and disagreements about what a truly democratic
world order would look like. Write an essay that identifies what you view as the most important issue in
the struggle over democracy (e.g., individual freedom vs. community welfare, poverty/inequality vs
individual freedom, imperialism vs national independence, first vs third world hierarchy, rational vs
irrational, secular vs. religious politics, etc). In structuring your essay, choose four movements or events
(2 from pre-1945, 2 from post) and discuss what they contributed to shaping the “struggle over
democracy” in terms of the issue you identified. In your conclusion, speculate on where you see the
“struggle over democracy” headed in the 21st century. The question allows for broad leeway and
creativity, as well as skill in weaving together diverse elements into a coherent argument. There are also
