On Line Readings

Course outline

Schedule

Essay requirements

Tips on the Essay and Commentary

Other Required Course Info

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

political science 404/515

 

 

contemporary (normative-analytic) political philosophy

 

 

Tuesday evenings, 6-9 pm

 

 

email:  Don.Carmichael@ualberta.ca

 

 

office hours: by email appointment

 

 

 

Course Outline 

 

 

This seminar will draw on some of the principal recent works in normative-analytic political philosophy as a basis for addressing questions about the possible value and meanings of public goods and public space. 

 

This is the main approach to political philosophy in the English-speaking world. It is characteristically ‘normative’ in focussing on issues of value and justification in political life and ‘analytic’ in addressing these issues in terms that stress careful analysis and clarity.  These issues mainly arise within and about the modern social-democratic liberal state (eg, freedom, equality, justice) -- but the field also includes many radical and revolutionary theorists who reject the liberal democratic state.  The field is politically wide-open. It is characterized by a commitment to clarity in analysis and justification, not by political beliefs.

 

The course will provide an overview of the leading theorists and issues in the field.  But two such theorists will be singled out for detailed and contrasting attention: John Rawls (on justice and public justification) and Charles Taylor (on practical reasoning and community-based value).

 

  

The Work

 

The purpose of this seminar is not to ‘instruct’ students, but rather to provide a format in which they can read and discuss some core works of the field.  Clearly, only some of the core works can be covered.  Consequently, I invite participants to suggest revisions to the course topics and work load as the seminar proceeds

 

 

Readings and Texts

 

On-line articles will be used extensively, in addition to a course pack of readings (Pol S 404/515 course reader) available in SUB Bookstore.  The course pack contains extensive selections from Charles Taylor’s Sources of The Self.  Students may want to order this directly (it is available in a reasonably priced paper edition from the various on-line booksellers). 

 

 

Pre-requisite:  Political Science 210 or equivalent  

 

Course Requirements 

 

All participants (including any auditors) will be expected to contribute to the seminar discussions and to prepare for these discussions by careful reading of the assigned material.  I appreciate that some students are uncomfortable speaking in class; arrangements can be made for such students to contribute in written form, without speaking.

 

Students taking the course for credit will be asked to do (i) three essays, (ii) an oral commentary on the work of another student in the seminar, and (iii) digests of selected readings each week.

 

The essays should be “positional”, as described below.  Two of these papers (6-7 pp) will due during the term; one of these papers will be discussed in the seminar.  Students will be invited to develop their own topics and interests through these papers.  A third and somewhat longer (7-10 pp) paper will be due at the end of the term; this paper should engage both Rawls and Taylor critically  on some central issue.

 

The oral commentary opens the discussion of another student’s seminar paper with a brief (5 minute) statement of possible lines of criticism and discussion.  Here again, special  arrangements may be made for students who are uncomfortable speaking in class  .More information on how to do a commentary will be provided in the week before the first one is done.

 

A “digest” is a brief statement – roughly 1.5 pp -- of the core position of each the designated readings (the main point and the main steps in its argument).  Students will be asked to do a digest each week of   assigned readings – with two weeks off of their own choosing.

 

 

Grades

             Essays: (3 @ equal weight)*     80%          

             Commentary                             10%          

             Contributions to the seminar** 10%          

 

*  In cases of significant improvement, the better essay(s) may be given more weight

 

**  Seminar contributions will be evaluated by the quality of oral contributions, including questions.  One can contribute effectively to the quality of a seminar without speaking much, or even at all.  Students who are uncomfortable speaking in public are invited to discuss alternative forms of contribution with me.

 

 

Essay Requirements

 

All essays should be terse, analytical, and "positional" -- arguing a definite thesis in relation to some aspect of the readings. Students are encouraged to develop their own views in these essays -- eg, by contesting a specific claim made by the author, or by arguing a rival thesis on the topic, or (in certain cases) by writing a critical response to a fellow student in the seminar. The only requirement is that the essay argue a specific and explicitly stated thesis ("In this essay I will argue that... ").

 

This is a specific style of essay writing. Students who are unfamiliar with this style should consult with me for direction before writing their first paper.

 

Essay Topics & Deadlines

 

Three papers are required:

 

paper # 1:  on any topic covered in Part 1, will be due  Friday, Oct 18th, 3 pm 

paper # 2:  on any topic in Part 2, will be due on Thursday, Nov 14th

paper # 3:  on any topic making critical use of both Rawls and Taylor – on or before Mon, Dec 16th, 4 pm 

 

Students are invited to write on any topic of interest within these specifications.  In case they are helpful, some possible topics will be suggested for the first paper (and for the other papers, too, on request).

 

Any changes to these deadlines (eg for paper # 3) will be announced in class and listed on the course web page.

 

There is an additional deadline.  As noted, one paper (either the first or the second) by each student will be discussed in the seminar: this paper must be emailed to everyone in the seminar by midnight on the Sunday before the Tuesday class in which it will be discussed.  The paper may be revised for grading after that date if the student wishes. 

 


Course Objectives

 

The objectives of this course are to provide each student with an opportunity

 

(1)     To understand the main works and approaches of the field;

(2)   to appreciate alternatives to these approaches;

(3)   to articulate and develop their own views on these subjects, and

(4)   to enhance their skills of critical writing and oral presentation

 

 

Schedule Revisions:  The seminar on Oct 1 will end early and may begin early; and there will be no seminar on Tuesday, Oct 7 (this session will be rescheduled at the convenience of the students)

 

 

. 

          

 

 

Topics and Readings

                       

All readings are required and should be digested unless listed otherwise (eg as “recommended). “cp” means the work is in the course pack; “web” means the work is available online .  A rough guide to length is indicated beside each article.

                                                                             

 

 

Part 1.  Introduction: Some Basic Questions and Principles

 

 

Sept 10    Organizational Meeting and Introduction:  Is There An Obligation To Obey The Law?

Reading Note: The reading for Oct 8 (Kloppenberg, Reading Obama ch 2) can be read anytime.   If you want to break it up, you might read pp 85-106 and then pp 106-49

 

Sept 17    Liberty, Legitimacy, and Authority 

  6                    Selections from Plato, Crito    [web]

  6                    Selections from Hobbes’ Leviathan, chs 13 and 17  [web]

13                    Pocklington, “Democracy and the Obligation to Obey the Law”  [cp]

  7                    Selections from J. S.Mill:  On Liberty   [web] 

10                    Berlin, "Two Concepts of Liberty", pp 1-10 and 29-32 (Introd’n and ss 1,2,8)     [web]

18                    Feinberg, “Hard Cases for the Harm Principle”     [web]

  9                    Decisions of the Supreme Court in R. v. Sharpe (possession of child pornography)  [web]

(69)                             recommended:   Skinner, “A Third Concept of Liberty”     [web]  

                                    recommended:   Ripstein, “Beyond the Harm Principle”  [web]

 

Sept 24  -   The Analysis of Rights and Possible Principles:  (1) Utilitarianism; (2) Human Rights

  7                    Selections from J. S.Mill:  Utilitarianism [web]

17                    Sandel, “The Greatest Happiness Principle” from Justice, 31-48  [cp]

  3                    Carmichael, “Rights and Human Rights”   [web] 

13                    Jones, “Forms of Right”  [cp]

  4                    Selections from Locke’s Second Treatise, chs 2 and 7  [web]

10                    Pocklington, “Against Inflating Human Rights   [web]

15                    Jones, Justifying Human Rights  [cp]

(69)                              recommended:   Hart  “Are There any Natural Rights?”    difficult    [web]

 

Oct 1 -       NB early start, 5:15 -- More Possible Principles: (3) Libertarianism (Nozick);    (4) Equality

14                    Nozick, “Distributive Justice” just pp 45-61 (stop at “Sen’s argument”)    [web]

20                    Williams, “The Idea of Equality”    [web]

  8                    for illustration: Decisions of the Supreme Court in Rodriguez v BC (euthanasia)   [web]

(42)                             recommended:   Taylor, “Atomism”  (difficult)   [cp] 

recommended:   Skinner. “The Paradoxes of Political Liberty”     [web]

recommended:   Anderson, “What is the Point of Equality?” esp pp 287-9, 312-37) [web]

seminar paper:  Erica Woolf                                        commentary: Kelta Coomber

 

 

Oct 8  -      Test Cases and Problems of Application

65                    Kloppenberg, Reading Obama, ch 2 – pp 85-149  (“Universalism to Particularism”).

                        Plus the 3 seminar papers

            seminar papers:  (1) Kelta Coomber,  (2) Andrew Douglas,  (3) Michael Mendoza  

            commentaries:    (1) Fizza Kulvi         (2) Erica Woolf            (3) Sean Graham  

 

 

Part 2.  John Rawls: A Theory of Justice

 

►Essay # 1 due: Fri, Oct 18th, in the General Office  (3 pm)  (note change)

 

Oct 15     Rawls’  A Theory of Justice  (1):   The Principles and Conception of Justice

10                    pp 1-10 (stop here) of Freeman, “John Rawls” in The Cambridge Companion   [web]

10                    Rawls, A Theory of Justice, sections 1-4, 11[web] [earlier listed as cp]

23                    Nagel, “Rawls and Liberalism”, Cambridge Companion, 62-85   [web]

16                    Sandel, “Two Principles of Justice”  [web] [earlier listed as cp]

(59)                           recommended: Audard, John Rawls, pp 89-119 (sections 3-6 in ch 2)    [web]

seminar paper: Joe Byram                            commentary: Michael Mendoza

 

 

Oct 22     Rawls’  A Theory of Justice (2):  The Argument and Conception of Community

  8                    Rawls, “The Reasoning:”, A Theory of Justice,  section 26)  [web] [earlier listed as cp]

18                    pp 10-28 of Freeman, “John Rawls” in The Cambridge Companion to Rawls   [web]

32                    Audard, John Rawls, pp 123- 55 (sections 1-3 in ch 3)  [web]

(58)                           seminar paper:  Shahab  Habibi                   commentary: Andrew Cisna

 

Oct 29 -     Alternatives & Criticisms (1) : Communitarianism and The Capabilities Approach

16                    Sandel, “The Procedural Republic and the Unencumbered Self”     [web]

13                    Nussbaum, “Capabilities and Social Justice  [web]

  3                    pp 217-20 of  Sen,  “Equality of What?”   [web]

24                    Blythe, “Life Chances: An Equality Concern”    [web]  

  8                    on later developments in Rawls: Freeman, “Public Reason”, pp 37-44 in Cambridge Companion   [web]

(64)                              recommended: Mulhal -Swift, “Rawls & Communitarianism”, Cambridge Companion, pp 460-75   [web]

seminar paper:  Andrew Cisna                  commentary: Andrew Douglas

 

 

Part 3.  The Good Society: Split Sessions on Charles Taylor and Public Values

 

Each of the remaining sessions will be divided between careful consideration of some of Charles Taylor’s work and – separately – analysis of selected issues that grow out of the course material considered thus far.  Each session will begin with a discussion of the Taylor selection, usually for 30-45 minutes.  Then we will turn to the main topic.  You should see these as split sessions: there will often be little direct relation between the Taylor selection and the main topic (although the hope is that such relations will emerge over time) 

 

Nov 5  -     Pot-pourri (a mixed bag of sub-topics)

18                    Taylor, Sources of the Self, sections 1.1 - 1.3,  and 1.5  (pp 3-14, 19-24)   [cp]

  8                    Freeman, “Public Reason”, pp 37-44 in Cambridge Companion   [web]

  8                    Freeman, “The Law of Peoples”, pp 44-51 in Cambridge Companion   [web]

12                    Macpherson, “Old and New Dimensions of Democracy”  (Real World, ch 1) [cp]

  9                    Simpson, Three Articles on Health Care in Canada    [web] 

 (55)                             recommended:             Williams, “Realism and Moralism in Political Theory” (difficult)[web]

                        Nussbaum,  Beyond the social contract: capabilities and global justice   [web]

Peter Singer, “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”,    [web]

                                                                        Chaoulli v Quebec (Supreme Court decision on private health insurance)   [web]

seminar paper:  Fizza  Kulvi                            commentary: Jackson Sawatzky

 

 

Nov 12  Mid-Term Break

 

►Essay # 2 due:  Thurs, Nov 14th

 

Nov 19 -    Public Goods vs Market Choice: the fairness and corruption arguments                     

21                    Taylor, Sources of the Self, sections 2.2 and 2.3 (pp 32-52)   [cp]

45                    Sandel & critics,  “How Markets Crowd Out Morals”  Boston Review 2012, 14-30  [web] 

(66)                              recommended: Sandel, “Limits of Markets” (two lectures)    [web]    

seminar paper: Will Kujala                              commentary: Shahab  Habibi

                       

Nov 26 -  Justice and Citizenship: Multiculturalism  (revised topic)

14                      Taylor, Sources of the Self, section 3.2 (pp 62-75)   [cp]

14                      Taylor, “The Politics of Recognition”   [cp]

18                      Panopalis,  “Moral Agency and the Demand for Recognition”    [web]

13                      Kymlicka, “Freedom and Culture” (Multicultural Citizenship, pp 80-93)  [web]

(59)                              seminar paper:  Sean Graham                          commentary: Joe Byram              

                 

Dec 3  -      Conclusion: Political Liberalism, Justice, and the Good Society

This concluding session will contrast Rawls’ and Taylor’s approaches, using cultural authenticity and multiculturalism as a test case.

27                    Taylor, Sources of the Self, sections3.3 and 4.1-4.2 (pp 75-98)   [cp]

  8                    review  Freeman, “Public Reason”, pp 37-44 in Cambridge Companion   [web]

12                    Larmore, “Public Reason”, Cambridge Companion, pp 380-91   [web]                                 

13                    Rawls, Justice as Fairness, A Restatement: ss 9, 10, 26 (pp 26-32, 89-94)   [cp]

(52)                           seminar papers:  Jackson Sawatzky  &  Michelle Hawk

                                 commentaries:    Will Kujala             &  Yasemin Sari

                 

►Essay # 3 -- on any topic making critical use of both Rawls and Taylor – Due on or before Mon, Dec 16th, 4 pm 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Information On Essays And The Commentary

 

THE COMMENTARY

The commentary should be written and brief; it will be judged on how well it opens up the paper for discussion.

 

1.                  begin by summarizing the thesis and argument (briefly)

 

2.                  set a generous tone by saying some nice things about the paper;

 

3.                  then indicate 1-2 themes/ideas for discussion and

 

4.                  start the discussion of the theme(s) in a way that will draw the class into the discussion. Several ways to do this.  Eg,

 

(i)                 by arguing against the paper’s account in favour of some different approach, or

(ii)               by indicating the importance and some additional things that might be said about the theme(s).

 

 

 

ESSAYS

Requirements:

All essays should be terse, analytical, and "positional" -- arguing a definite thesis in relation to some aspect of the readings. Students are encouraged to develop their own views in these essays -- eg, by contesting a specific claim made by the author, or by arguing a rival thesis on the topic, or (in certain cases) by writing a critical response to a fellow student in the seminar. The only requirement is that the essay argue a specific and explicitly stated thesis ("In this essay I will argue that... ").

 

This is a specific style of essay writing. Students who are unfamiliar with this style should consult with me for direction before writing their first paper.

 

These are not short research essays, nor are they opinion pieces.  They are position papers: they are expected to have (and state) a position and to support it with reasons and with reference to the text.  Suggestions are included below on how to do this.

Citations are required for all claims about the text and the paper should contain a bibliography, even if just one work.

Format: if you want legible comments, please leave 1.5” free on the right and bottom margins.

 

Suggestions

My sense is that many students have not actually been trained in writing this kind of essay.  That can be a real problem because this is a different kind of essay and it requires that you think about it in its own way.  It’s especially a problem if you are already good at writing other kinds of essays – because if you try to write this essay as if it were a different kind of paper, you simply won’t do well.  This is not meant to frighten you. There is no big deal to writing this kind of essay – if anything, they are easier to write – but they have to be written in the appropriate way.  And this takes practice.

I would specifically urge you to beware of what students have described to me as “the three point formula” (that every essay should have three basic points).  The formula is just suicide in this kind of essay.  Your essay should have just ONE point. If the essay has more than one point, it will not be able to say much about any of them.  Since the value of the paper consists significantly in its analysis, this means that there won’t be much of value in the paper. 

(Students often think that covering a big topic, or making several points – like the so-called “three point essay” – will enable them to get the paper done by saying a little about several things.  But this is a recipe for disaster.  Papers that say a little about several things say … very little about anything.)

So, how do you come up with the (one) point of your paper?

Here again I would urge you not to do this too quickly.  Students sometimes grab a topic and then grab their position (“I’m against him”) and then write the paper.  Boring, boring, boring.  Everything in this kind of paper winds up being pretty obvious, because it doesn’t involve much thought.  And that’s because the paper has been written as if it were a research paper, without the need for research.  In the standard research paper (simplifying), you take the topic, read up as much as you can on it, and then write up what you’ve read (hoping that you can say something interesting about you’re read).  That’s exactly the wrong way to write a position paper. 

To illustrate, consider students in our 499 honours thesis seminar.  The non-political theory students are usually able to say fairly early what they are going to study, and how, and what they hope to do with it.  Whereas the political theory students often don’t know what they are doing until they are almost finished. 

So with a position paper, you should see your position (the one point) as the key to the paper, and as something that deserves as much time and attention as the whole rest of the paper.  This can sound scary, but there is really not much to it – and it’s FUN, dammit.

First, commit to spending as much time on developing your position as on the rest of the paper. 

How do you do this?  Here’s some tips.

Free write and scribble.  Without even thinking of a definite topic, just sit some place you like (I like the Sugarbowl, despite the noise) and scribble away. I think of this as mental throwing up: but something good always comes out of it. 

Be negative.  The best place to start is with things you don’t like – things in the theorist, and things in what others (in the seminar or in readings) have said.  Use this as the point of departure for your scribbling. 

Pay attention to the wayward thoughts – we have passing thoughts in the shower, waiting for the bus, etc – these are often the results of real reflection by the quiet mind.

Discuss and debate with a friend.  Get a discussion buddy from the seminar, buy them beer or coffee for an hour and ask them to disagree with everything you say.  Even better, ask them to listen carefully to what you say with a view to find the one or two things that might be holes in your position. (see below).

Second, don’t be afraid of problems.  Seek them out and turn them to your advantage. 

Is there a problem with your position?  Good – because there should be.  If there are no problems with your position, then it will be obvious … and not worth writing about.

So if you have doubts or reservations about your position – that’s excellent.  You are not expected to argue a position that is obviously true. What you want is a position that – on reflection and consideration of alternatives – has more support than the alternatives.  So your doubts and reservations can be brought into the paper – either as issues for consideration or (in a footnote) as an issue or further analysis.

In fact the real depth in your paper will come out of the paper’s even-handedness: the way it advances your position, not as 100% correct, but instead as a position that, on balance, is better than the others.

As a small example, I mentioned above (under “Be negative”) that there may be things in the theorist that you don’t like.  So at some point in scribbling about this you might consider whether the theorist is really saying this –or, better, whether this is the only way to interpret the passage(s).  Maybe there are other ways to read the passage(s) such that the problem doesn’t arise. 

Third, write, write, write. And then revise.

When we go through this process, we often wind up with a position that’s different from the one we started with, or thought we held.  This process is sometimes called … “thinking” or even.. .. “learning”.

On this account, think of writing the paper 3 times.  (it’s really three “stages”).  The first stage, is the fumbling around, scribbling, talking.  Through this, things (usually a couple of things) will emerge that you care about. This is the beginning of your position.  Now at the second stage, assemble them into a position.  Pay attention to what you want to treat as basic (your thesis) and what instead supports it (reasons).  So assemble them into an argument, pay some attention to what can be said against it, and to the text.  Try then to say all of this as clearly as you can.  Then stage 3: revise and polish. 

 

 

 



 

Other Required Course Information

 

Course Prerequisite: Pol S 210 or consent of department

 

Past or Representative Evaluative Course Material

 A sample digest and a sample essay introduction will be distributed in the class

 

Required Notes:

“Policy about course outlines can be found in Section 23.4(2) of the University Calendar.”

 

Academic Integrity

“The University of Alberta is committed to the highest standards of academic integrity and honesty. Students are expected to be familiar with these standards regarding academic honesty and to uphold the policies of the University in this respect. Students are particularly urged to familiarize themselves with the provisions of the Code of Student Behaviour (online at http://www.governance.ualberta.ca/en/CodesofConductandResidenceCommunityStandards/CodeofStudentBehaviour.aspx ) and avoid any behaviour that could potentially result in suspicions of cheating, plagiarism, misrepresentation of facts and/or participation in an offence. Academic dishonesty is a serious offence and can result in suspension or expulsion from the University.” 

 

Learning and working environment

The Faculty of Arts is committed to ensuring that all students, faculty and staff are able to work and study in an environment that is safe and free from discrimination and harassment. It does not tolerate behaviour that undermines that environment. The department urges anyone who feels that this policy is being violated to:

• Discuss the matter with the person whose behaviour is causing concern; or

• If that discussion is unsatisfactory, or there is concern that direct discussion is inappropriate or threatening, discuss it with the Chair of the Department.

For additional advice or assistance regarding this policy you may contact the student ombudservice: (http://www.ombudservice.ualberta.ca/ ). Information about the University of Alberta Discrimination and Harassment Policy and Procedures can be found in the GFC Policy Manual, section 44 available at http://gfcpolicymanual.ualberta.ca/ .

 

Plagiarism and Cheating:

All students should consult the “Truth-In-Education” handbook or Website ( http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/TIE/ ) regarding the definitions of plagiarism and its consequences when detected.Students involved in language courses and translation courses should be aware that on-line “translation engines” produce very dubious and unreliable “translations.” Students in language courses should be aware that, while seeking the advice of native or expert speakers is often helpful, excessive editorial and creative help in assignments is considered a form of “cheating” that violates the code of student conduct with dire consequences. An instructor or coordinator who is convinced that a student has handed in work that he or she could not possibly reproduce without outside assistance is obliged, out of consideration of fairness to other students, to report the case to the Associate Dean of the Faculty. Before unpleasantness occurs consult http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/TIE/; also discuss this matter with any tutor(s) and with your instructor.

 

Recording of Lectures:

Audio or video recording of lectures, labs, seminars or any other teaching environment by students is allowed only with the prior written consent of the instructor or as a part of an approved accommodation plan. Recorded material is to be used solely for personal study, and is not to be used or distributed for any other purpose without prior written consent from the instructor.

 

Attendance, Absences, and Missed Grade Components:

Regular attendance is essential for optimal performance in any course. In cases of potentially excusable absences due to illness or domestic affliction, notify your instructor by e-mail within two days. Regarding absences that may be excusable and procedures for addressing course components missed as a result, consult sections 23.3(1) and 23.5.6 of the University Calendar. Be aware that unexcused absences will result in partial or total loss of the grade for the “attendance and participation” component(s) of a course, as well as for any assignments that are not handed-in or completed as a result.

 

Policy for Late Assignments:

My policy on extensions is to be as accommodating as possible.  My policy on lateness is different:
(1) Seminar papers which are not distributed in time (by the time agreed upon by the class) will be given a grade of ‘F’ and will not be discussed in the seminar 

(2) Work that is late in all other cases will not receive comments but normally will not otherwise be penalized. I must however reserve the right to assign grade penalties if the lateness creates unfairness for others.

 

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------