|
Topics & Readings (Winter term) Essay requirements (winter term) |
|
political
science 210 (section C1) The History of
(Western) Political Thought fall & winter terms. 2010-11 MWF 1-2 pm Don Carmichael (Don.Carmichael@ualberta.ca) Office: 11‑28 Tory Phone: (780) - 492‑5390 Office
Hours (1st term): Mon
- Wed, 2:15 - 3:30 and by appointment. Course Outline This course is an introduction to
political philosophy, conducted as a critical examination of some of the
major classical writings in the history of western political thought.
Although some effort will be made to relate these writings to their historical
contexts, they will be used primarily as important and still relevant
reflections on central questions of political life, and students will be
encouraged to use these writings to develop their own understandings of these
questions. This section of the course will be
discussion-oriented. There will
be regular seminars on Fridays and, despite the size of the class, student
discussion will be invited in the lecture classes. As part of this focus on discussion, the course will
include instruction in the skills of effective expression and argument. Students are invited to propose
special projects and to suggest ways in which the course might be improved
over the year. |
|
|
|
|
The Work
Students
in this course are not expected to have any background in philosophy or
theoretical work. On the contrary,
the course is an introduction to the subject; and a major priority of the
course is to teach students how to do political theory -- and enjoy it.
The
material covered in this course must be studied in a particular way: it calls
for careful, critical reading and reflection, rather than research. Students will not be asked to read a
lot, even for essays; but they will be expected:
(1)
to read the assigned material carefully,
(2)
to do so before the class for which it is assigned, and
(3)
to come to class prepared to discuss it.
As
the course schedule indicates, readings are assigned each week (and usually for
specific classes). These readings are not heavy and an effort has been made to
distribute them evenly throughout the year. But students will be expected to read the assigned material
carefully, before the class for which it is assigned, and to come to class
prepared to discuss it. Pop
quizzes will be used to test and reward preparation.
NB: to save
students the long line-ups in SUB bookstore, it will not be necessary purchase
course materials for the first two weeks of the course. These materials will be
available on the web page.
In an effort
to reduce students' costs, most of the course readings have been edited into a
coursepack, using copyright-free public domain sources. The coursepack for this
year is different from the one used last year.
These texts
are available in SUB Bookstore:
Readings in
The History of Western Political Thought (Course pack)
Plato, Republic (Penguin, Lee
translation).
NB: to save students the long line-ups in SUB bookstore, it will not be necessary
purchase course materials for the first two weeks of the course. These materials will be available on
the web page.
Grades
will be based on essays and two exams: a mid‑term in December and a final. The pop quizzes and class participation
will be worth 10%.
However, students will have a choice of being evaluated primarily
through essays or instead through exams.
Essay writing is an essential part of the learning in this course, but
it is clear that some students prefer exams (or are more successful on them)
while others prefer essays. So
students can decide for themselves whether to be graded primarily by essays or
instead by exams. There will be
two grading formats. In the
exam-based format, students do three essays and these essays have the
same weight (45%) as the exams. In the essay-based format, students do one more essay and
these four essays are worth twice as much as the exams.
Essay format Exam-format
quiz/oral 10% quiz/oral
10%
mid
term
10% mid
term 15%
final
exam 20% final
exam 30%
essays
(4) 60% (equally
weighted) essays
(3) 45% (equally weighted)
You don=t have to do anything to indicate which format you want. Your grade will be calculated in both
formats, and you=ll get whichever grade
is better. At the end of the year,
if you=ve done three essays then this will obviously mean the exam format. If you=ve done four essays, your grade will be calculated with the four essays
in the essay format, and also with your three best essays in the exam format,
and you=ll get whichever grade is better.
Can you do more than four essays?
Yes! Many students improve
their skills of analysis and essay-writing over the year, and in some cases the
improvement is enormous. So you
are encouraged to do extra essays -- in which case, only the best essays will
be used in determining your final grade.
Essays
Essay-writing (like other forms of expression) is a skill which can be
developed and improved. Students
will be encouraged to work at their essay writing skills and individual help
will be available for students who want it.
Essays in this course should be brief (1200-1500 words), positional, and
critical, arguing a definite thesis in relation to some aspect of the
readings. These essays call for
analysis and critical reflection.
They are not research papers.
They will not require any reading or research beyond the material
assigned for the course. The best way to do well on such essays is by careful
reading of the course material as indicated above.
Three essays are required:
(1) one essay on the introductory themes (due early October),
(2) a second essay on either Plato (due mid November) or Aristotle (due
early January), and
(3) a third essay on either Hobbes (due February) or Rousseau (due mid
March).
Students who wish to write more than three essays may do so during the
year (on any theorist on whom they haven=t already written) or on some assigned topics (including Marx) in late
March. There will be choice on all
topics. Due dates and specific
topics will be announced early in each term.
Special Requirement re: Submission of Essays. There were 35 students
in the course the first time I taught it; this year there will be 80. This larger class size makes it
very difficult to get to know students personally. I especially dislike reading and grading essays from
students when I have no idea who they are. For this reason, please include a picture of yourself on the last page
of the essays you submit.
Late essay policy. Essays will be due in class on the date
stated and this deadline will be strict for the first essay. For all other essays there will be a
brief grace period for late papers.
Essays submitted on time will be marked and returned with comments as
quickly as possible. Essays
submitted in the grace period will be returned later, with fewer comments. Essays submitted after the grace period
will be penalized.
This section of the course concentrates on a range of major theorists (Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Rousseau, Marx), while also covering – more briefly – a range of other theorists (eg, the classical Islamic philosophers, Machiavelli, Rawls). Essay topics will be on the ‘major’ theorists but both sets of theorists will be covered on the two exams (there will be separate sections, with choice, on each group).
Exam questions will ask students to interpret key passages and to evaluate
selected thinkers. Good answers
show an effective critical grasp of the theorists and reflection on the issues
they raise.
Deferred Exam: the date of the
deferred final will be listed as part of the schedule for the second term
Academic Integrity and Honesty
The Dean of Arts requests that course outlines remind students that
academic dishonesty is a serious offence and can result in suspension or
expulsion from the University. Students
are particularly urged to familiarize themselves with the Code of Student
Behaviour (online at www.ualberta.ca/secretariat/appeals.htm) and avoid any
behaviour which could potentially result in suspicions of cheating, plagiarism,
misrepresentation of facts and/or participation in an offence.
Student Distress Centre
I hope this won=t be necessary for any of you, but if you are having a hard time at any
point -- on anything, whether emotional, financial or personal -- the Student Distress
Centre is there to help. You can
reach them by Phone (492-HELP/ 492-4357) or Drop In (SUB 030-N) or Visit
(www.su.ualberta.ca/sdc) or Chat ( www.campuscrisischat.com)
DEADLINES: K essay # 1: Wed, Oct 13th (introduction) and Fri, Oct 15th (essay)
K essay # 2 (Plato
topics): Mon, Nov 15th (essay # 2 on Aristotle topics
will be due in early January)
K mid term: Tues,
Dec 14th
INTRODUCTION : Mill and The Problem of Freedon
Sept. 8-10 Introduction
Wed: introduction to the course
Fri: J.S. Mill, Biographical Note + On Liberty, chs
1-2 (421-22,
431-35) (web page)
+
Johnston, Essays:
1 (“Reading beneath the
Surface”) (web page)
Sept. 13‑17 Mill,
On Liberty: freedom of thought and expression
Mon: On Liberty,
chs 3-4 (435-41)
+ Utilitarianism, ch 2 (425-29) (web page)
+ Johnston, Essays, 2.1- 2.2
Wed: On Liberty, ch 5 (441-46) (web page) + Johnston, Essays, 2.3 - 2.4
Fri: test case – Rodriguez v British Columbia (463-70)
(web page)
THE PROBLEM OF POLITICAL AUTHORITY -- Sophocles= Antigone and Plato=s Socrates
Sept. 20-24 Antigone
Mon: Sophocles, Antigone
(1-36): is Antigone guilty? (web page)
Wed: read
Antigone again: should Creon punish Antigone?
Fri: Plato, Biographical Note + Apology (43-62) (web page)
Sept 27-Oct 1 Socrates
Mon: Crito
(65-76) + Essays, 3.1 - 3.2 : is Socrates obligated to
stay?
Wed: re:
read the Crito: analysis of the arguments + Essays, 3.3-3.6 (do exercise 3.6 at home)
Fri: do Socrates’ arguments apply
to Antigone?
Oct 4-8 Crito
Analysis, Thucydides on Athens, & Essay-Writing
This week you will be asked to read two selections
from Thucidides’ History of the Peloponnesian War but the lectures will
focus on essay writing and
analysis of the Crito arguments
Mon: Thucidides, ‘Pericles Funeral
Speech’ (History 2: 6) + Essays, 3.7 - 3.9.
Lecture: the consent argument (Crito)
Wed: Thucidides,
‘The Melian
Conference’ (History 3: 17) + Essays,
4.1 - 4.2 Lecture: Crito vs Apology,
Fri: Crito vs Antigone
PLATO: Republic (for those using different texts, the Stephanus pages
are listed in italics)
Oct. 11-15 Republic: Introduction K essay #
1 due Wed (introduction) and Fri (essay)
Mon: Thanksgiving
holiday
Wed: Cephalus,
Polemarchus (79-86) + Penguin ATranslator=s Introduction@ (xiii- lviii)
Fri: Thrasymachos
(86-92)
Oct. 18-22 Republic:
Foundations of The State
Mon: restatement
by Glaucon & Adeimantus (Penguin,
pp 40 - 52) B St
357a -367e
Wed: social needs,
education (Penguin, 53-76)B St 368a-383b
Fri: social classes
(Penguin, pp. 96-100 + 112-29) B St
400d - 403c + 412b -427c
Oct 25-29 Republic,
Justice
Mon: the
psyche (Penguin: pp.130-49) B St 427d
- 441c
Wed: virtue
in the individual (Penguin: pp. 149-56) B St
441c - 449a
Fri: women as guardians, the family (Penguin:
pp. 157 - 81) B St 449a
- 466d
Nov. 1-5 Philosophy
& Power
Mon: philosophy:
(Penguin: pp 189-92 + 208-19) B St 471c
- 474b + 487b - 497a
Wed: sun, line
and cave analogies: (Penguin: pp. 226-48) B St 502d
- 521b
Fri: comparison: cave analogy (Penguin,
240-48) with Mill, Representative Government ch 3 (course pack,
441-46)
Nov 8-12 Politics,
Critical Issues
Mon: democracy,
tyranny (Penguin: 275-78, 290-314) B St 543a-
545c, 553b - 576b
Wed: justice
benefits (Penguin: 314-19, 330-334) B St 576c
- 580c, 588b - 592b
Fri: no class: fall term break
ARISTOTLE: Ethics and Politics
Nov. 15-19 The
Fulfilled Life
(K essay # 2 on Plato topics due Mon)
Mon: happiness,
character & justice:
Biographical Note + Ethics, Books 1-5 (95-104)
Wed: friendship:
Ethics, Books 8-9 (106-110)
Fri: seminar on friendship
Nov.
22-26 The
"Nature" of Political Association
Mon: wisdom
and the best of lives: Ethics, Books 6, 10 (104-106. 106-110)
Wed: the
nature of political association: Politics, Books 1 & 2 (117-25)
Fri: the critique
of Plato (property & families): review Book 2
Nov 29-Dec 3 Constitutions
Mon: citizenship
& constitutions - Book 3
(125-31)
Wed: the
“best” constitution - Books 4, 7,
8 (131-42)
Fri: no seminars: concluding
lecture on Aristotle
THE MEDIEVAL PERIOD (1) : Religion and Natural Law
Dec. 8-10 European Medieval Political Thought: Natural law, Machiavelli
Mon: western natural law:
Cicero, Aquinas (145-48, 181-87)
)
Wed: elitism, equality and slavery in
classical Greek political philosophy
Mid Term: currently
scheduled for Tuesday, December 14th, 2 pm (classroom)
TOPICS & READINGS: Second Term
The Medieval Period (2) : Classical
Islamic Political Thought, Machiavelli
Jan 10-14 Mon: Al-Farabi. Read “Selections” and Tufail ss 1- 50 (151-67)
Wed:
responses: Ibn Sina, al-Ghazali, Ibn Rushd. Read Tufail ss 51- 121 (167-7
Fri: Machiavelli, The Prince (191-202)
Rights & Authority: Hobbes and
Locke
Jan 17-21 Hobbes,
Leviathan Part One (*
Aristotle essays due Monday)
Mon: introduction + Leviathan, ch
13, then chs 1-5
nb Wed: seminar: is ch 13
accurate on the ‘natural condition of mankind’”?
nb Fri: lecture:
man & society: Leviathan,
ch 13, then chs 6-12
Jan 24-28 The
Argument for Authority: Leviathan, Part Two
Mon: natural right & morality: Leviathan,
chs. 14‑16
Wed: authority: Leviathan, chs. 17-20
Fri: question (2): is Hobbes right about the nature and extent of
the authority needed?
Jan 31-Feb 4 The Hidden (and Brighter?) Side: Liberty & Law
Mon: liberty & law : Leviathan, chs
20-21
Wed: law & statecraft: Leviathan,
chs 26-31 + Aquinas – review pp 159-63 (suicide, etc)
Fri: question (3): does the account of liberty and law improve Hobbes’
account?
Feb 7-11 Locke,
The Second Treatise B (* Hobbes essays due Monday)
Mon: human nature & rights: Second
Treatise, chs 1-4 + “Rights” (Readings, 4573-59)
Wed: rights & authority: chs 7-9, 11, 19
Fri: property:
Second Treatise, ch
5
Feb 14-18 Hobbes
vs Locke: International Citizenship & Rights
Mon: Hobbes v Locke as models of international relations
nb Wed: seminar: question
(4): is Locke superior to Hobbes?
nb Fri: lecture: human rights:
Pocklington, “Against
Inflating Human Rights”
Feb 21-25 Reading
Week
Rousseau
Feb 28-Mar 4 Discourse on The
Origin of Inequality B (* Hobbes vs Locke essays due Monday)
Mon: Biographical Note, Discourse, Part 1 (281-96)
Wed: Discourse, Part 2 (296-310)
Fri: critical evaluation of Part 1.
Mar 7-11 The
Social Contract: political issues
Mon: Book 1 (313-21)
Wed: Book 2 (321-30)
Fri: can people be Aforced to be free@?
Mar 14-18 Rousseau:
questions of interpretation.
Mon: Books 3-4 (331-40)
nb Wed: seminar: critical evaluation (Is Rousseau more like Mill or more
like Plato?)
nb Fri: lecture: conceptions of freedom and democracy
Marx
Mar 21-25 The
“Young” Marx -- (*
Rousseau essays due Monday)
Mon:
Biographical Note +
Graveside Speech + Preface to
Critique of Political Economy and
then ahead to Capital (351-56, 401-404)
Wed: Critique of Hegel, + Economic & Philosophical Manuscripts (1st
mss on Alienated Labour) (357-58,
373-70)
Fri: Economic & Philosophical Manuscripts, 3rd
mss (370-80)
Mar 28-Apr 1 Marx and PoliticsB
Mon: materialism -- Theses on Feuerbach,
German Ideology
Wed:
the state – The Jewish Question
+ The Civil War in France +
Critique of Gotha Programme
(359-62, 405-418)
Fri: the political programme -- Communist Manifesto (391-400)
Looking Ahead, Looking Back
Apr 4-8 Some
Contemporary Political Theory * optional extra essays due Wednesday
Mon: Rawls (485-88) (review Mill, Utilitarianism ch 2 and
On Liberty)
Wed: two Canadian critics: Charles
Taylor, C.B Macpherson (491-506)
Fri:
final seminars – topic tba
Apr 11-13 Final
week: The Year in Review
Mon and Wed (the last class): a review of the course with attention to the exam question announced on the first day of the term: “Write a critical assessment of ??? (a particular theorist to be named). Your answer
should assess this person’s claim to be considered a major
political thinker by outlining the important parts of his theory and the strengths
and weakness of his theory, explaining why they are strengths and weaknesses.”
Final Exam: scheduled
for Wed, Apr 27 -- at 2 pm in the classroom.
Deferred
Final (if necessary): Wed, May 4th, 4 pm
ESSAYS AND ESSAY‑TOPICS
General Requirements
Essays in this course are expected to be brief (1200-1500 words),
critical, and positional. That is,
the essay must adopt a specific position on the topic and then argue in support
of this position using the course material. The position must be stated in the first paragraph as: AIn this essay I will argue that ...@
Essays should be double‑spaced with wide (1.5") margins on all four
sides to allow for comments. They
must footnote sources and they must contain a bibliography (even if just one
work).
The Nature of The Essay
Essays should be "position papers". The main concern is argument, rather than interpretation or
research: you are expected to take a definite position on the topic, and to
argue this position effectively.
It is essential to show a good understanding of the theorist and text in
question; but this understanding should be developed through a critical
argument. Papers will be assessed
mainly by the quality of their arguments: especially, by whether the argument
is effective/persuasive, well‑organized, and clearly presented, with some
appreciation for what might be said against it.
The fact that these are not "research papers" does not mean
that you should not read widely (eg, commentaries and current philosophical
discussions of the issues, as listed in the bibliography). On the contrary, you can sharpen your
thinking and develop clearer critical perspectives by reading widely. In particular, whenever your essay
deals with an important concept (eg, justice, or democracy, or freedom) it is a
good idea to read more about this concept. But remember that your essay will be judged by the quality
of your arguments, not by your sources.
Thus your main priority should be to read (and re‑read) critically the
text, to think carefully about the issues it raises, and to identify your own
views on these issues as clearly as possible.
The topics listed below are suggestive and
others may be added later to reflect particular issues that arise in the
course. Students are also encouraged to propose their own topics on issues of
special interest. These should be
discussed with the instructor well before the essay deadline.
The key to your paper is your "thesis" (the position you
argue). Your main concern should
be to work out exactly ‑‑ and clearly ‑‑ what this is. The best way to do this is by thinking
critically and carefully about the
text. It also helps to read
commentaries and to discuss the issues with friends ‑‑ this may clarify what you
want to argue, and what may be said on the other side.
Your first paragraph should state your thesis clearly ("In this
essay I will argue that ...") and indicate how you will argue it (eg:
"I will argue this in three steps"). The rest of the paper should be organized around arguing
this thesis as effectively as possible.
Obviously, you can't say much in a brief essay so you must choose the
most important arguments. It may
be necessary to define the topic more narrowly, ie, focussing your paper on
just one of the issues raised by the topic.
You should also consider possible objections to your argument, and how
you might rebut them (eg, if you are criticizing Plato, how might he respond:
and what would you say in rebuttal?).
Here again, you should be brief and selective.
Remember that you are trying to persuade: the aim of the paper is not to
show off what you know (to a teacher) but rather to make a persuasive case (eg
to a judge and jury).
Finally, this kind of essay will be new for most of you, and it will
take some time to learn how to do it well. So be prepared to learn, and give yourself time over the
year to do so. And remember the basic AThree Times Rule@: you will need to write your essay at least Three Times:
(1) After you choose the
topic, DON=T write the essay: instead do some free writing around it -- perhaps
more than once -- to let your real ideas emerge.
(2) After a few days, identify your position and write a draft of the
paper. Leave it for a few days.
(3) Then read the draft critically. Examine your thesis B has it changed? Have you
stated it adequately and clearly in the introduction? Examine your arguments B are there some points you need to develop further? Are there some important objections you
need to consider? Then revise the
paper.
Checklist
Before signing off on your essay, check these points:
□ have you
narrowed the topic into a specific thesis?
□ have you asserted this thesis (position) clearly in paragraph 1? (In this
essay I will argue that that Mill’s account is mistaken because...)
□ have you thought about the question from both sides of the issue? Do your reasons take some account of
what might be said on the other side?
□ have you engaged with the text – presenting the theorist’s position
fairly and considering how s/he might respond to any criticisms you’ve made?
□ have you cited the text for any claims made about the theorist? Have you included a bibliography?
Essay
Topics: fall term
Essay
#1 Topics (Mill, Socrates)
1. Mill
declares in On Liberty that an individual’s liberty can be limited only “to
prevent harm to others. His own good ... is not a sufficient warrant” (403) but
he seems to contradict this in his claim (ch 5) that individuals cannot sell
themselves into slavery. Using
Mill’s text, assess whether his position is truly contradictory on this
point. Your assessment should be
based on the best case you can make that there is no contradiction.
2. Mill
seems to hold that liberty can only be limited to prevent harm to others and
that no one can be harmed by anyone else’s belief. Does this mean that he would oppose any restrictions on the
expression of racial/ethnic stereotypes?
3. Socrates
suggests in the Apology that he would
not obey a certain law if the Athenians were to pass it. Is this consistent with his position in
the Crito?
4. Is
Socrates right (in the Crito) that he has an obligation to obey the law,
even though it requires his death?
That is, do his arguments show that everyone – including you – has an
obligation to obey the law?
Introduction due: Wed,
Oct 13th in class
Paper due: Fri, Oct 15th,
in class (seminars)
nb: this deadline is
strict. For other papers in the course there will be a grace period (as below).
But this paper must be
submitted on or before the due date
Essay # 2: Due either (i) Wed Nov 17th (on Plato)
or (ii) Mon, Jan 17th
(on Aristotle)
(i)
Plato
1.
The class structure in Plato’s ideal republic
violates human equality and happiness.
2.
Mill and Plato disagree about how much liberty
there should be in the ideal society.
Whose view is right, and why?
3.
Suppose Antigone had lived in Plato’s
republic. How would the
philosopher-rules have treated her case, and would they be right?
DUE: in class, Wed, Nov 17th (grace period 5 days to Mon, Nov 22nd).*
Agrace period@: essays submitted on
time will be marked and returned with comments as quickly as possible. Essays submitted in the grace period
will be returned later, without comments.
Essays submitted after the grace period will be penalized.
(ii)
Aristotle
1.
Even though Aristotle was clearly wrong
about the actual rational capacities of women and slaves, wasn=t
he right to insist on a significantly high capacity for rational understanding
as a condition for citizenship?
2.
Aristotle argues that the life of
contemplation is superior to the life of practical citizenship activity in the
community (NE 10:7-8). Is his argument convincing? [your account should consider
both the Ethics and the Politics]
DUE: in class, Mon, Jan 17th (grace period 5 days to Fri, Jan 22nd
Please write legibly: marks cannot be given if the answer
cannot be read. Answers should be
specific, crisp and to the point. Avoid waffle and bs.
Time: you should be able to do this in 50
minutes. But you will have 90
minutes from the time the exam begins.
In this exam, you are asked to interpret two passages
from the list provided (choice of three).
You may use texts and notes freely (but no laptops, please).
Your interpretation should explain (1) the meaning of
the passage in its context and (2)
its significance in the work as a whole. If you believe the passage can be understood in more
than one way, explain the different possible interpretations and their
significances.
Note that you are not asked merely to explain what the
passage means on its own. In
explaining its significance in the work as a whole, you might show that:
(a) the
passage is logically essential (the work as a whole is arguing a position in a
certain number of steps; and this is one of the essential steps); or
(b) the
passage is crucial in some different way, (a reader couldn’t possibly
understand the work as a whole if s/he didn’t understand this passage
correctly), or
(c) the
passage means more when it is understood in the context of the rest of the work
than it does when read just on its own.
Try
to Have Fun with This
Additionally:
1. to give students space to work, the exam will be held
in two rooms: the regular classroom and also T 1-91
2. personally, I wouldn’t waste time doing this but you
are free to consult with others if you (and they) wish. But do not disturb
others if you do this: leave the room quietly, and use one of the adjoining
seminar rooms for your discussion and finish the exam there (if you come
back into the classroom, you’ll disturb others)
3. as noted above, you may bring anything (except
laptops) and anyone you want.
Bring your mother (isn’t she always right?) or dig up Plato and bring
him.
4. remember the point of the exam:
1.
To get you to review the course, carefully (this is
part of the learning
experience)
2.
To
give those who’ve done the work a chance
to do well
How to
Prepare
There’s no need to
study – you can’t “study” for this kind of exam because (hopefully) it just tests
the work you’ve been doing all term.
But you can ‘prepare’ --
remember the instructions:
Your interpretation should explain (1) the meaning of
the passage in its context and (2)
its significance in the work as a whole. If you believe the passage can be understood in more
than one way, explain the different possible interpretations and their
significances.
Note that you are not asked merely to explain what the
passage means on its own. In
explaining its significance in the work as a whole, you might show that:
(a) the
passage is logically essential (the work as a whole is arguing a position in a
certain number of steps; and this is one of the essential steps); or
(b) the passage is crucial in some
different way, (a reader couldn’t possibly understand the work as a whole if
s/he didn’t understand this passage correctly), or
(c) the
passage means more when it is understood in the context of the rest of the work
than it does when read just on its own.
Therefore, for each work (including those considered
briefly) step back from the narrative sequence of the work and consider this
sequence with reference to the work as a whole:
3. how is the thesis and/or basic
concerns developed through these stages? There will be three questions on the final exam. Two questions
will be the same kind of interpretive question as used on the December
mid-term. One of these will draw
on the major theorists of the course (with some choice). The second question
will draw on minor theorists in the course (again with some choice). The third question will ask: “Write a
critical assessment of ??? (a
particular theorist to be named).
Your answer should
assess this person’s claim to be considered a major political thinker by outlining
the important parts of his theory and the strengths and weakness of his theory,
explaining why they are strengths and weaknesses.” Essay
Requirements and Topics: Winter Term A reminder that three essays are required in the
course: (1) one essay on the introductory themes (due early
October), (2) a second essay on either Plato (due mid November)
or Aristotle (due early January), and (3)
a third essay on either Hobbes, (due Feb 14), Hobbes vs Locke
(Feb 28) or Rousseau (Mar 21) Thus in this term you must do an essay on Aristotle if
you didn’t do one on Plato, and then a third essay on either Hobbes or
Rousseau. Remember that you have the option of doing extra
essays. Extra essays may be
written on any theorist on whom you haven=t already written or on the final topics. The final topics are reserved for those
doing extra essays. Late
Essays: Essays are
DUE on the dates indicated. Papers
submitted on time will be given very high priority: they will be returned with
comments as quickly as possible.
Papers submitted in the grace period will be given lower priority: they
will be returned later and without comments. Papers submitted after the grace period go to the bottom of
the priority list. Academic
Form:
Essays must be submitted in correct academic form with adequate textual
citation and a bibliography (even if it is just one work); inadequate form and
insufficient citation will be penalized.
Citation for
Works in the Coursepack: The first reference/footnote
should cite the work fully (as below) and include the note “future references
to this work will be cited by page/line number in the text”. Subsequent references should then
indicate the page and line in parentheses in the text (213/35). For example,
suppose the essay text reads: In Leviathan,
Hobbes argues that the state of men1 without government would be “a
time of war, where every man is enemy to every man”2. He makes it plain, however, that this
“war” might not consist in actual fighting; it is simply a time in which men
are willing to fight (201/11-18). The footnotes might read: 1.
by “men” I believe
Hobbes means “people” 2. Hobbes,
Leviathan, in Readings in The History of Western Political Thought (Course pack) edited by Don Carmichael from the Public Domain University of Adelaide
electronic texts collection, rendered into HTML by Steve Thomas. ESSAY # 2: Topics on
Aristotle 1. Even though Aristotle was clearly
wrong about the actual rational capacities of women and slaves, wasn=t he right to insist on
a significantly high capacity for rational understanding as a condition for
citizenship? 2. Aristotle argues that the life of
contemplation is superior to the life of practical citizenship activity in the
community (NE 10:7-8). Is his argument convincing? [your account should consider
both the Ethics and the Politics], DUE: in class, Mon, Jan 17th (grace period 5 days to Fri, Jan 21st
) ESSAY # 3: Topics on
Hobbes, Hobbes vs Locke or Rousseau For essay # 3, there is a choice of topics and due
dates. Students may write on
either 1.
Hobbes, (due Feb
14), 2. Hobbes vs Locke
(due Feb 28) or 3. Rousseau
(due Mar 21) (a) Hobbes 1. Does Hobbes
advocate too much authority? If
so, what is the error in his argument? 2. What
in your view is the single most important objection to Hobbes’ political
theory? How would Hobbes respond
to this objection, and would his response be adequate? DUE: in class,
Mon, Feb 14 (grace period 5 days to Fri, Feb 19) (b) Hobbes vs Locke 1. Hobbes and Locke disagree
about the proper extent of political authority. Setting aside your preference for one conclusion or the
other, show that one theorist’s argument is superior to the other’s. 2. If it is true that international relations today is a state of nature, is this
condition better understood in Lockean terms or in Hobbesian terms? DUE: in class, Mon, Feb 28 (grace period
5 days to Fri, March 4) (c) Rousseau: 1. Does the Social Contract respond
adequately to the problem(s) outlined in the Second Discourse? 2. It has been said that A...in the political theories of Hobbes and Locke,
individuals confront one another and the state just as separate individuals,
with no sense of community. Thus Hobbes and Locke both understand freedom as
the freedom of separate individuals against one another and against the
community. By contrast, Rousseau
shows that we can be truly free only by acting with others as members of a
community.@ Do you
agree? 3. Defend Rousseau’s
suggestion that citizens be “forced to be free”. DUE: Mon,
March 21st (grace
period 5 days to Fri, March 25th ) FINAL
TOPICS: for students doing extra
(four or more) essays – 1. Given a choice between reducing
alienation and protecting individual liberty – which is the better choice and
how should we understand it? 2. Suppose a new drug is
discovered, called "Wonderful D". It has just two properties: (1) each use occasions a state of utter bliss, and (2) the
100th use is immediately (but blissfully) fatal. The drug is always fatal after exactly 100 uses (never more
or less), it has no other effects, and it is not addictive. Under what conditions should
Wonderful D be licensed for sale?
Use this issue to contrast the insights and limitations of any two theorists
on the course. 3. In Marx’s view, what is the main
cause of human alienation: (1) private property, (2) capitalist relations of
production, (3) the division of labour? 4. Political theorists today generally do
not discuss religion. By contrast,
all of the theorists considered this term discuss religion – some of them quite
extensively. Who does it best? DUE Mon, Apr 4th (grace period 5 days to Fri, Apr 8th) This section outlines (i) general information on the
exam, (ii) the three parts of the exam, and (iii) suggestions on how to prepare
for it. General Information On exam booklets – write only your ID number an the first initial of your
surname (M 123456789) In the original classroom (Tory 1-93) Covers the whole year Bring the coursepack (you’ll need it) and pretty well anything else you
might want -- But NO notes or laptops You will be free if you want to consult with others (including advisors)
outside the room – tho this isn’t advised Note: this final exam is designed to get students to do a certain kind of
review work. It’s not the ‘end’ of the course, testing what students have
learned (or memorized) but rather a separate stage in its own right of learning
in the course. In this component
you are asked to review the theorists and their works with a view to
considering (as regards the theorists) their major ideas, the strengths and
weaknesses of these ideas, how their works are best interpreted and, through
this, your own views about how political theory might be understood and
evaluated. No memorization is required for this exam. The best preparation is to review the theorists AND your own
reflections on them over the year.
The
3 Parts of The exam The exam will have three sections, each of equal weight: as below Part
A: Critical Assessment of a Major Theorist Here,
you will be asked to write a critical assessment of one of the major theorists
on the course. Your answer should (a)
outline the important parts of his theory, (b)
indicate the strengths and weakness of his theory, explaining why they
are strengths and weaknesses, and (c)
assess his claim to be considered a major political thinker In this section you will be asked to interpretation a passage from one
of the works on the course by one of the major theorists listed above in Part
A. Note, however, that whereas the
question in Part A focuses on the theorist, this question focuses on a specific
work. As
on the December mid-term, your interpretation should explain (1) the meaning of
the passage in its context and (2)
its significance in the work as a whole. If you believe the passage can be
understood in more than one way, explain the different possible interpretations
and their significances. Note
that you are not asked merely to explain what the passage means on its
own. In explaining its
significance in the work as a whole, you might show that: (a) the passage is logically essential (the
work as a whole is arguing a position in a certain number of steps; and this is
one of the essential steps); or (b) the passage is crucial in some
different way, (a reader couldn’t possibly understand the work as a whole if
s/he didn’t understand this passage correctly), or (c) the passage means more when it is
understood in the context of the rest of the work than it does when read just
on its own This
section is a hodge-podge. There will be a choice of several questions,
including (i) some passages for interpretation from theorists/works not covered
in Parts A & B, and also (ii) a few comparative questions (eg, compare Plato
an Marx on justice). In addition, you will need to think about why
this theorist might and might not) be considered a major political
theorist. What – in your opinion –
should a political theory do, and what are the criteria for doing it well? Some possible criteria are suggested
below. I recommend that you think about this before you
start you review, and that you reconsider it several times during your review. Part B (and C): Here, I suggest that you
review each work (note: the specific work, not the theorist) with a view to: (a) the
major concern(s) of the work (b) how
the concern is advanced (C)
Your own view about the concern(s) and the means by which it is advanced Power and originality of thought Demonstrated truth Practical relevance Raises the right questions/Addresses the right
issues Makes sense of the world Influence Literary power
You will be given two names (and asked to
write on either of them) from this list:
Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau. Marx, Mill.
Part
B: Interpretation – Major Theorists
Part
C: Interpretations of Passages from Other Theorists and Comparisons
Preparation
Part A: In preparing for this section you might
review each of these theorists, considering in each case what you take to be
(a)
the theorist’s major ideas
(b) the strengths and weakness of his theory
(c)
the quality or value of
these ideas
Some Criteria
(these are suggested just as a start – to help you think
about your own).
Truth