Political Science 406/515
"Hobbes' Leviathan and Modern
Individualism"
Essays: Dates, Topics and
Suggestions
Fall
Term, 2012-13: Tues eves, 6-9 pm
e-mail: Don.Carmichael”ualberta.ca
office hours: Weds 3:30-5 and by appointment
This will be a seminar on Hobbes’ Leviathan
with close critical attention to the text and to the adequacy of its leading
ideas today, particularly as these concern aspects of “individualism”. The
focus will be on Parts 1 and 2, especially on the conceptions of rights,
liberty, power and authority and with some attention to whether Hobbes’
arguments would support a global authority. Parts 3 & 4 will also be considered
with reference to the applicability of Hobbes’ treatment of religion today
The course will be conducted as a seminar. Students will be expected to contribute
actively in discussions, and the seminar will be organized around the
presentation and discussion of student papers.
After the first few weeks the required readings will not be extensive,
but students will be expected to read them carefully and to supplement them
with selections from recommended commentaries.
Two short seminar papers (5‑7 pp) will be
required, plus a somewhat longer paper at the end of the term. All papers should be analytical and
"positional". Brief digests (1‑2
pp) of the assigned readings will be required each week as an aid to critical
reading and mastery of the text. Each participant
will be asked to open the discussion of one of the seminar papers with a brief
commentary.
The seminar will be taught as a combined undergraduate
(406) and graduate (515) course. Expectations for the two groups will be
appropriately different. Graduate
students will be expected to do the same work, but better.
Objectives: I hope
that students in this course will develop – in reverse order of importance –
(1)
a solid critical understanding of the argument
and central concepts of Leviathan;
(2)
an ability to use these concepts – eg, rights,
liberty, etc – effectively today; and, above all,
(3)
a sense of
how much FUN close, critical analysis in political philosophy can be!
Grades* Essays
: (3 @ equal weight) 80%
Contributions to the seminar* 20% (including commentary, normally weighted
at 10%)
Reading digests are required each week before the
seminar, with two weeks off on dates of each student’s own choice. These
digests will be graded only as satisfactory/ unsatisfactory but they are a strict
necessity and marks (up to two letter grades) will be deducted from the final
grade for missing digests.
* Seminar contributions will be evaluated by the quality
of oral contributions, including questions.
It is possible to 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.
Texts and Readings
The main reading will be Hobbes’ Leviathan, supplemented by on-line secondary readings.
You should order your own
copy of Leviathan (I haven’t ordered any through the bookstore). You may use any edition that has the
full text (ie with Parts 3 and 4) and numbered paragraphs; ie, the Martinich (Broadview Press) or Curley (Hackett) editions. I
prefer Martinich (the presentation is easier to read)
but the Curley edition is perfectly acceptable (and footnotes references to the
Latin edition).
Essay Assignments
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 in the text, 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... ").
Essay Due Dates / Topics*
essay # 1: due
Thurs, Oct 18th on any aspect
of the text or argument in Part One of Leviathan.
essay # 2: due
Thurs, Nov 15th on any aspect of the text or argument in Part Two
(this deadline does not apply to anyone doing a seminar paper after Nov 15th
on aspects of Parts Three or Four)
essay # 3: due
Thurs, Dec 13th on any aspect
of the text or argument in Leviathan (with an extension for anyone who did a
seminar paper after Nov 15th)
*Students who have done work on Rawls are welcome to
write one of their essays on some aspect of his interpretation of Hobbes in
Lectures on The History of Political Philosophy.
This
schedule is may be revised as the seminar proceeds to accommodate participants’
interests.
The
required readings for each session include any seminar paper(s). All listed readings are required unless
otherwise indicated. Easy access to all readings is provided on the web page.
Seminar
papers to be emailed to all participants by midnight on the Sunday before they
are scheduled to be discussed.
Part 1: The
Core Argument
Sept 11: Introduction (NB:
a full class)
6 Leviathan, 13.
7 Decision of the Supreme
Court in Rodriguez v BC
(readings)
Sept 18: Philosophical foundation:
20 Leviathan: The Introduction, chs. 1‑5.
15 De
Cive, pp 7-24 (“Readers Preface” + sec’ns
1-2 of ch 1) (web)
2 Genesis,
chapter 1 (readings)
36 Skinner, “Hobbes’s
Life in Philosophy”, Visions of Politics v 3 (Hobbes and Civil Science) (library on-line book)
Sept 25: Human
nature
26 Leviathan, 6‑9.
6 Finn,
51-6 (egoism), Hobbes: A Guide for
the Perplexed (library on-line book)
22 Background reading: Wikipedia entry on The
English Civil Wars:
12 Johnson,
“Hobbes and The Wolf-Man” (Walton and Johnson, Hobbes’s ‘Science of Natural
Justice’)
seminar
paper: Neekoo Collett commentary: Michael
Doyle
Oct 2: The
natural condition of mankind
30 Leviathan, 10‑13.
5 Ross,
pp 143-48 in Starting
with Hobbes (library on-line book) on ch 12
14 Macpherson on Hobbes (handout)
10 De Cive,
ch 1 (pp 21-30) (web)
5 Slomp, “Hobbes on Glory and Civil Strife”, Part 3: pp 187-92 (Cambridge Companion to Hobbes’ Leviathan,
on-line)
seminar
paper: Tyler Buchan commentary: Neekoo Collett
Oct 9: The Argument Reconsidered with a Test
Case: Global Warming and Global Authority
4 Genesis,
ch 2-3 (readings)
5 Aristotle, Politics, Book 1, chs. 1‑2 (readings)
24 Bunce, Thomas Hobbes,
pp 83-99, 113-119 (library on-line book)
23 test
case: Maltais, “The Threat of Global Warming and
Demanding Global Political Duties” (readings)
seminar
paper: Michael Mendoza commentary:
Kevin
Pinkoski
Part 2: Rights,
Authority and Liberty
Oct 16: Morality:
the right and law of nature
27 Leviathan, 14‑16.
14 Carmichael,
“The
Right of Nature in Leviathan” (library e-journal)
6 Finn,
74-80 (laws of nature)
seminar
paper: Allyson Seeney commentary:
Trenton
Broens
Reminder: Essay # 1 due Thurs Oct 18th
Oct 23: The covenant, authority and liberty
43 Leviathan, 17‑21.
13 Finn,
86-98
7 review:
Decision of the Supreme Court in Rodriguez v BC (readings)
seminar
paper: Kevin Pinkoski commentary:
David
Falk
Oct 30: Law, crime, and punishment
41 Leviathan, 26‑28.
9 Finn,
98-106 (limited sovereign?)
20 recommended:
Susanne Sreedhar, Defending
the Hobbesian Right of Self-Defense (library e-journal)
Claire Finkelstein, A
Puzzle About Hobbes On Self-Defense (library e-journal)
Eleanor Curran, Can
Rights Curb the Hobbesian Sovereign (library e-journal)
Carmichael,
Hobbes
on Natural Right in Society (library e-journal)
seminar
paper: Trenton Broens commentary:
Aaron Pollock
Nov 6: Statesmanship
48 Leviathan,
22-25, 29‑30
(Digest
chs 29-30, with a one paragraph summary of 22-25)
seminar
paper: Jacqueline LeBlanc commentary:
Kelta Coomber
Nov 13: no
seminar: fall term break
Reminder: essay
# 2 due Thurs Nov 15th
Part 3: Liberty,
Authority and Religion
Nov 20: Part
3: the state & salvation
12 Leviathan,
31
5 Ross,
pp 143-48 in Starting
with Hobbes (library on-line book)
20 Leviathan:
“Selections from Part 3”
(readings)
18 Ross,
148-60
seminar
papers: David Falk & Michael Doyle
commentaries: Jacqueline LeBlanc & Michael Mendoza
Nov 27: Religion,
philosophy & power
13 Leviathan,
“Selections from chs 44 and 46” (readings)
11 Leviathan, 47
10 The
Book of Job: selections
(readings)
seminar
paper: Aaron Pollock commentary: Emerson Csorba
Dec 4: Hobbes today -- Happy 434th Birthday Mr
Hobbs!
The topic and
readings for this final session may be revised in the light of student
interests
13 Leviathan, "Review
and Conclusion".
2 Wikipedia
entry on John Rawls (web)
3 Gray, “Can We Agree to Disagree?” (library
e-journal)
19 Rhodes,
“Reading Rawls and Hearing Hobbes” ((library e-journal)
seminar
papers: Kelta Coomber
& Emerson Csorba
commentaries: Tyler Buchan & Allyson Seeney
Reminder: essay
# 3 due Thurs Dec 13th
Due
Date: In response to the
issues discussed by the class last week, I have tried to extend the
deadline. Unfortunately, there is not
much I can do. I am sorry about this – I
try to be as accommodating as possible on this issue but right now my schedule
is determined by unusual circumstances outside my control. The best I can do, therefore is this.
Essays submitted – in paper, not email
(a)
by noon on Friday (Nov 16th) will
be returned promptly with full comments
(b)
by 4 pm on Monday (Nov19) will be returned
promptly but with only very brief
comments, as time permits
(c)
after Mon
4 pm up til the last class will be returned without comments sometime after the
end of the course .
Essays in these categories will not be penalized.
Requirements:
Essays should focus on specific
passages of the text with a view either
(a)
to interpreting the passage with reference to
its consistency in relation to other passages
or
(b)
assessing the
adequacy of the view propounded in the passage.
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.
Textual citations are required for all claims about the text. The text
should be cited (by chapter and paragraph number, eg 21:1o or 21.10), and the
paper should contain a bibliography, even if just one work.
Format: if you want legible comments, 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 (Hobbes on Liberty) 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 Hobbes,
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 Hobbes 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 Hobbes that you don’t like.
So at some point in scribbling about this you might consider Hobbes 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 ome 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.
Finally, in case it helps, here’s the kind of essay I enjoy
reading. It’s an essay that tries to persuade me
that a
specific passage or conception is better read one way instead of others or
that a
particular interpretation is mistaken (ie less plausible than another), or
that a
particular conception in the text is inadequate in some interesting way, or
that a
particular criticism of a conception is mistaken..
Topics.
The course outline indicates that essay # 2 may be written “on any aspect of the text or
argument in Part Two” (except for those doing a seminar paper after Nov 15th
on aspects of Parts Three or Four).
I would like
to amend this by asking you to write specifically on one of the three topics
below. If there is something else you
want to write on, you may do so but please discuss it with me first.
To get started, consider these problems:
(i) Heinz steals
medication that he cannot afford but needs to save his life. He is charged and
convicted for theft. What duties (on the
part of the sovereign) and rights (on the part of Heinz) are violated by this? Does the conviction permit Heinz to kill or
overthrow the sovereign?
(ii) Don steals a Porsche
that he cannot afford but needs to enable him to ‘live well’ (15.22; also 30.1)
because it pumps up his ‘joie de vivre”.
Is there any difference between the cases of Don and Heinz?
If you like either of these questions, choose one and think about how
you would answer it BUT DON’T write your essay on it. Instead, write on one of
the following more general topics, using (i) or (ii) as an example to
illustrate your case.
1.
Does Hobbes’ claim that subjects retain the
(core) right of nature undermine or contradict the authority of the sovereign
or the stability of the commonwealth?
2.
Hobbes claims that subjects in the
commonwealth retain the (core) right of nature (as the “true liberty of the
subjects” 21:10 f). Who decides what is
covered by this right, or when it applies: the subject, or the sovereign?
Here’s another question, on a different topic:
3.
Hobbes’ definitions of the ‘right’ and the
‘law’ of nature (14.1 and 14.3) refer expressly to the preservation of a
person’s own ‘nature’ and ‘life’. What
does he mean by a person’s ‘nature’ and ‘life’?
Is it mere physical survival?)
Consider with reference to his use of these terms throughout Parts 1 and
2.
Papers should be submitted – in paper copies – no later than 12 noon, Monday, Dec 17th
in the general Office (10-16). Note the
extension.
Students are not expected to do further reading or to
break fresh ground with this paper.
Instead, treat the paper as an opportunity to review and to re-consider
some basic issue that has already been discussed. The essay should be
positional -- a considered criticism or interpretation – and it should be
argued with careful attention both to the text and to what might be said
against your position. You are welcome
to revisit an issue that you considered in an earlier paper, presumably with
some attention to the critical comments on that paper. In such cases please include the original
paper and comments. If you need help
getting started you might consider the topics circulated for essay # 2, or one
of these:
1.
What is Hobbes’ worst mistake in Leviathan?
2.
Like many people today, you live in a pluralistic society, a society
marked by deep differences of view about justice, religion, and how best to
live. But many people today – unlike you – live in societies where citizens are
prepared to fight, kill and die in a struggle to live in ways they can respect.
In such societies, is Leviathan
true? But if it is true in these
societies, what’s different about ours?
3.
Hobbes’ account of the ‘natural condition’: (i) if this is false,
explain why; or (ii) if it is true, explain why we are able to live without the
kind of sovereign Hobbes proposes.
A final note.
My experience is that students generally don’t pay much attention to the
comments on their final papers (or even collect the papers) so I only comment
on these papers when requested to do so.
Other Required Course Outline 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.