Writing Academically, Part 2: The Butler Did It

You're not writing a crime novel. We don't want suspense. We want a clear, well-formulated argument beginning from the first sentence of your text. Think of it as game of backwards Cluedo, the board game where you have to guess an assassin, a murder weapon and a crime scene. We want who, how and where, and we want it to begin with. Start by stating exactly what you think; that the butler did it in the dining room with a wrench. Let's look at a short example, a text by Heiko Henkel concerning the Muhammed cartoon crisis in Denmark, 2005:

"Using a conceptual framework developed by Axel Honneth, I suggest in this article that the cartoon crisis is part of an ongoing struggle for recognition in Denmark, through which the terms by which Muslims residing in Denmark are recognized as legitimate citizens/residents of Danish society are negotiated—and on which Muslims may recognize the demands of Danish majority society as legitimate." (Henkel 2010:67)

Henkel nicely sums up his entire essay in a single sentence. We know from the beginning exactly what his central argument is (that the butler did it), in what context he's writing (the dining room) and what conceptual framework or theory he'll be using to analyze the issue at hand (the monkey wrench).

You don't need a lengthy introduction, teasing the readers into reading more. We want the argument to be clear and concise. In the last post on writing, I urged writers to keep on track and have their points in order before beginning an essay. Show the reader that you did your homework! The more you write with your eyes on your project, the easier it'll be for a reader to follow you.

For a somewhat extreme, but very effective example, consider this introduction by Danish anthropologist Thomas Lemke:

"In this paper I would like to address two questions: (1) why does the problem of government assume a central place in Foucault’s work? and (2) how could this concept serve to analyse and criticize contemporary neo-liberal practices?"

It certainly wouldn't work as the first chapter in a Sherlock Holmes novel, but in academia, it's sublime. You know exactly what this author wants to show and you can easily judge whether he succeeds or not. You're not lost as a reader, you're guided by the hand.

Don't chew what you can't swallow. One central argument is enough for any essay, unless you're a French structuralist - in which case, more power to you. Even some of the best books I've read concern only one argument, that could easily be summed up in just a single sentence. That one sentence belongs up front. All the rest of the essay is the basis for your argument. The next installment of this writing workshop will focus on just that; the 300-odd pages that follow your one golden sentence.

Bibliography

Henkel, Heiko

2010: Fundamentally Danish? The Muhammad Cartoon Crisis as Transitional Drama. In Human  Architecture: Journal of the Sociology of Self-Knowledge, 8 (2), 67-82

Lemke, Thomas 

2000: Foucault, Governmentality, and Critique. Paper presented at the Rethinking Marxism Conference, University of Amherst (MA), September 21-24