Ruth Benedict places a much stronger emphasis on the way that culture shapes human nature, but she also starts out with inherent (and presumably inherited)
human characteristics. Like Hobbes and Wilson, Benedict believes that human beings across cultures have the same set of inherent traits. Unlike the other two, however, Benedict focuses on the differences among human beings. According to Benedict, human beings in all cultures are born with the same spectrum of characteristics, but those characteristics are encouraged or discouraged to different extents by the cultures in which people live. This view is perfectly compatible with the views of both Hobbes and Wilson; it simply emphasizes the other half of the nature/culture equation.
The framework for this discussion revolves around a single question: how does each author view the interaction between human nature and culture? Once this question has been answered by the three authors whose works are summarized, the writer is free to propose his or her own answer to the question, thus synthesizing the ideas in the summary portion.
COMPARING AND CONTRASTING
One of the most common assignments in college courses is to compare or contrast different texts, concepts, or phenomena. (The format of this assignment is discussed in Chapter 9, p. 605.) To compare things means to discuss how they are similar, while to contrast things means to show how they are different. However, in general usage, the term "compare" can be used for either operation.
A comparison/contrast assignment involving texts (including visual texts such as paintings or photographs) requires you to make connections between two or more opinions, arguments, theories, or sets of facts. A good comparison/contrast essay, however, does more than just list similarities and differences—when done well, it can become a vehicle for generating a unique and creative synthesis of different ideas.
As with any writing assignment, the key to good comparison and contrast essays is to generate an interesting, subtle topic to write about. Look beyond surface similarities or differences and try to invent, rather than simply discover, a compelling basis for viewing two (or more) texts in relation to each other. Here are a few suggestions to keep in mind:
Choose a single point for comparison
Consider the following thesis statement:
Plato and Machiavelli are very different in their nationalities and their cultures; however, they are similar in the way that they present their ideas. They both emphasize the importance of knowledge, and believe that certain people are superior to others.
This kind of listing is appropriate for prewriting, but it lacks the focus and organization necessary for a good essay. Instead of simply listing similarities and differences, you need to create a framework in which the comparison makes sense. Doing so will often mean choosing a single area of similarity or difference and focusing entirely on that area, as in the following revision of the above statement:
The crucial difference between Plato and Machiavelli is that Plato sees ultimate
truth as existing beyond the material world while Machiavelli believes that material reality is the only truth that matters.
This framework, of course, cannot account for all the differences between Plato and Machiavelli, but it does not have to. A comparison/contrast paper does not need to be exhaustive nearly as much as it needs to be focused. By looking only at Plato's and Machiavelli's views of material reality, you will be able to develop a significant, interesting approach to reading the two texts together.
Do not try to compare everything
Any two things can be compared or contrasted in hundreds of different ways, most of which will not be relevant to your main point. Stick closely to the focus of that essay and be ruthless in cutting out details that do not support your primary claim.
Avoid stating the obvious
Many comparison/contrast assignments deal with pairs of things whose surface similarities or differences are easy to see. When this is the case, consider working against the obvious. Look for ways that clearly similar things are different or that clearly different things are the same. An apple is different from a monster truck, for example, in many ways—so many, in fact, that there is little value in pointing them out. If you can come up with a compelling argument, though, about how an apple is like a monster truck (perhaps that they have both become much bigger than they need to be to fulfill their natural functions), you will have a very interesting essay indeed.
The same principle applies when you are comparing ideas. Imagine that you have been asked to compare or contrast a pair of essays whose main points obviously contradict—such as Mencius's chapter on the inherent goodness of human nature and Hsun Tzu's rebuttal essay, "Man's Nature Is Evil." The essays clearly oppose each other, but they also share a number of assumptions about what kinds of behavior constitute "good" and "evil." Finding those assumptions and making them the basis of a comparison paper will be much more interesting than simply repeating the obvious fact that Mencius thought that people were good, while Hsun Tzu thought that they were bad.
Compare underlying assumptions
Beneath every claim is an assumption, a presumption that makes it possible for a claim to be true. The claim that "higher education is a good thing because it helps people get good jobs and earn more money throughout their lives" only holds fast if earning more money is considered to be a good thing. (See Chapter 9, p. 605, for more on this.) The most obvious—and therefore the least subtle—connections between two works will usually be found in what the authors explicitly state. More sophisticated connections can be found in the underlying principles and premises that are necessary for an argument to make sense.
For example, consider this comparison, based on an underlying assumption shared by Plato's "Speech of Aristophanes" and Vandana Shiva's Soil, Not Oiclass="underline"
On the surface, Plato's philosophical "Speech of Aristophanes" and Vandana Shiva's environmentalist essay Soil, Not Oil seem to have nothing in common. One is a whimsical parable about the creation of the human species, and the other is an impassioned plea for a just distribution of resources among the people of the earth. Underneath the surface, however, both selections make the argument that human nature is incomplete and fractured. Plato believes that human beings are partial beings until they find a romantic partner who can complete them. Shiva sees human nature as something that cannot survive long without a connection to nature and the environment. In sum, Plato and Shiva believe that human beings cannot ever be self-sufficient enough to meet all of their own needs.
Neither Plato nor Shiva attempts to prove that people are incomplete; this assumption lies behind the arguments that both make. Keep in mind that an underlying assumption may not be referred to in a text. It is not a major point of an argument, but it is the underlying value or idea that makes the argument possible.