Course Outline

Political Science 406/515

Topics and Readings

"Hobbes' Leviathan and Modern Individualism"

Essays: Dates, Topics and Suggestions

Fall Term, 2012-13:   Tues eves,  6-9 pm

Essay # 3

e-mail: Don.Carmichael”ualberta.ca

office hours: Weds 3:30-5 and by appointment

Other Required information

 

 

 

 

Course Outline:

 

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.

 

 

Topics and Readings

 

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

 

 

Essay # 2

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.

 

 

Essay # 3

 

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.