BIS 362, Autumn 2005, course blog

Study Group?

2005-12-09T08:10:00.000-08:00

If any of you want to use this blog to arrange a study group, feel free to use this thread.

Thanks all for a great quarter.

Final Exam, cont.

2005-12-04T16:59:00.000-08:00

A few things first:

1) This exam is comprehensive.

2) This exam will include several choices. There will be two essays that should be answered with 3-5 paragraphs, and one essay that will be answered with one paragraph. A "full length" paragraph for the purposes of this exam should be 5-10 sentences.

3) The first essay will be a choice between two different questions. One question will deal with The Racial Contract; the other will deal with Globalism.

4) The second essay will deal with major themes in the course, and will require that you discuss and compare different ideologies. There will be two, possibly three options for this essay, and each question will contain some degree of choice about whto write about within the question.

5) The third essay, a short answer question, will not involve any choice--everyone will write on the same topic.

6) This exam is worth 100 points. The point distribution will look like this: 50 for the first essay, 40 for the second, 10 for the third.

7) The translation from points to GPA grade will look something like this: 95+ A (4.0), 80 B( 3.0) 65 C (2.0), 50 D (1.0), with the in between numbers filling in the gaps.

Here are some questions that are similar in style and content to the ones you might encounter for the first and second essays. Remember--while these probably will not appear on the exam, if I decide I really like one of them I reserve the right to include it.

Take the perspective of a liberal political theorist, and give a response to Charles Mills argument in The Racial Contract. Choose a few specific issues to consider.

Many have criticized Mills The Racial Contract for not adequately suggesting what should be done in light of this analysis. Choose two ideological perspectives, and give an account of how they might address the problem of the racial contract (assuming, for the purposes of this paper, that Mills version of the problem is persuasive).

What are the different 'dimensions' of the racial contract? Describe each one, with specific examples, noting how they might reinforce each other.

What is the connection between the ideology of "globalism" and the liberal political ideology? Is globalism better understood as a logical outgrowth of liberal ideology or a distortion of it?

How has globalization reshaped the landscape of political ideologies, according to Steger?

How important are the rights of the individual to each of the four ideologies we studied? Rank the four ideologies--from most concerned with individual rights to least--giving your reasons for each placement.

Identify and discuss one important philosophical disagreement between liberals. Be sure to discuss the views of at least two specific authors.

"Strong Democracy represents a middle ground between the absolutist views on private property found in liberalism and Marxism." Do you agree? Why or why not? Be clear about what the understanding of property is in each of these theories.

We all know liberals are strong defenders of freedom of speech--discuss how you think two of the other three ideologies we've studied would be inclined to think about free speech--how much of it we should have, how free it should be, etc.

reading next week

2005-12-01T08:43:00.000-08:00

So the truncated reading of Globalism goes like this:

Tuesday: Read ch. 1, 3. Spend a very short amount of time very quickly skimming ch. 2.

Thursday: Read. ch. 4 and 6 (5 optional)

Final Exam: preliminary post

2005-11-28T20:20:00.000-08:00

Logistics: We'll meet on Tuesday of finals week: (December 13) at the regular time, 8:45. I'll write an exam that I expect will take the average student about 90 minutes, so most slower writers won't have a significant disadvantage--you're welcome to use 125 minutes. The exam will be essay questions, so bring an exam book. The exam will be comprehensive. It will be structured in a way that requires you to write about either Mills Racial Contract or Steger's Globalism (amongst, of course, other things). I will either ask you to write one long essay and a few short ones of two longer essays (and maybe something really short as well).

As for information, study guides, etc.

Here are two options.

Option 1: I post several "sample questions" that are similar in structure and content to the ones I will ask, but are not, in fact, the questions that will appear on the exam. On the exam itself, there will be a non-trivial amount of choice about what ideology and what theorists you write about, sometimes within a question (example: compare one liberal and one conservative or Strong D. thinker on issue X), or between more specific questions.

Option 2: I give you a list of questions that I'll choose from for the longer essay questions. You'll have some of those essays to answer on the exam, but you'll have no choices--you'll have to answer the ones I choose. Also, once I post the exam questions, I'll offer only the most general help in formulating answers--they'll be posted after a review session, and you'll be more or less on your own in formulating answers. I'll probably post 6 or 7 questions, and you'll write on two. (I might also put a short answer on this exam that you won't know about in advance, but that'll be worth no more than 10% of the exam). Given that you have the precise questions in advance, my expectations would be modestly (but not significantly) higher.

I'm willing to go with a democratic decision here, and I'll tell you that the distribution of grades will probably be similar no matter which way you choose. We won't have much class time to devote to Rousseau/Barber style deliberation about this decision, so we'll have to go with a more liberal version of democracy--voting, taking the majority preference. Rousseau is too hard to please anyway.

I'd recommend option 1, personally--option 2 leads to unnecessary overpreparation and the questions I do ask will deal with major course themes and won't contain any sneaky tricks or questions that highlight minor details. Anyone who has been doing the readings, attending class, and spending some time just thinking about this stuff should do fine with a bit of review.

Feel free to use this discussion thread for two things. 1) Making the case for option 1 or 2 (we'll vote in class on Thursday), or 2) Asking me any further questions about what to expect on the exam.

paper topics, second analytic essay

2005-11-22T08:14:00.000-08:00

Same as before: 4-5 pages double-spaced, thesis-driven analytic essay.

Option 1:
Can Marxism be reconciled with a version of liberalism? Be sure to include and discuss arguments on both sides of this debate--your paper should discuss and consider strong arguments that conflict with your position and why they fall short.

Option 2:
Is Michael Walzer correct that "industrial democracy" is just as implied by the principle of democracy as political democracy? Why or why not? (as with option 1, do consider and evaluate strong arguments against your position).

Option 3:
Your own topic! Related to major themes in the course. The question must be submitted to me via email--or as a comment in this thread by class next Tuesday (11/29). I will either a) approve it, b) reject it, or c) modify it slightly and approve it. (c) is the most likely outcome.

Walzer on workplace democracy

2005-11-21T22:01:00.000-08:00

Erin sent me a link to a very nice piece that rethinks Walzer's commitment to workplace democracy. It's a pretty sophisticated argument, and on a quick reading, I find several sections of it partially persuasive (yes, I'm refusing to commit one way or the other. I'll need to think about this). The article discusses how Walzer's commitment to workplace democracy relates to his larger theory of "complex equality" which you didn't read about but I did discuss briefly, but the author does an excellent job of summarizing these issues. If this you need some serious political theory to get through Thanksgiving, check it out here.

Grade conversions

2005-11-15T13:09:00.000-08:00

For the paper, and both future papers:

A 4.0
A- 3.75
A-/B+ 3.5
B+ 3.25
B 3.0
B- 2.75
B-/c+ 2.5
C+ 2.25
C 2.0
C- 1.75
C-/D+ 1.5
D+ 1.25
D 1.0
D- .75
F 0

Thurs readings

2005-11-08T08:35:00.000-08:00

Thursday's reading assignment is on e-reserve. Remember, the password is "halfmoon"

Please note that there are two different selections from Ben Barber. The first is about five pages, and that should be read very carefully. The second is a long chapter (close to 50 pages) and you'd be well advised to skim a bit when you're working through some of the details. In this chapter, he discusses about ten ideas for strong democratic reforms in the US. Read carefully about the ones that interest you, but don't worry about learning all the details for all of them. Do read the final section of this chapter, where he sums up his position, with some care.

Short paper

2005-11-08T08:27:00.000-08:00

Here are the instructions for the short paper due 11/22:

1) Search for a recent (as in, from 2005) newspaper editorial, or op-ed. Major local papers are fine, as are large national papers (The New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, USA Today, Boston Globe, for example). Some have free searchable archives, others don't, but you can always search through the library's lexis-nexis database.

2) Print the column, and write a two page paper examining the political ideology of the column. Is the author showing liberal, conservative, or strong democratic tendencies (or, although this is very unlikely, Marxist tendencies)? In about two pages double-spaced, explain what ideology you think is at work in this editorial, and how it's influencing the author. Don't rely simply on the outcome or position that the author is arguing for--remember, ideology is about the process, not the outcome. As I mentioned the other day, David Brooks at the NY Times wrote a conservative column in defence of same sex marriage a couple of years ago.

I'll add to this post in answer to any questions you have about this assignment. Post your questions in this thread. If you find an op-ed column and you're having a hard time figuring it out, I'd advise you to move on. There are plenty of op-ed columns out there that should make this pretty easy.

Rousseau, book 2

2005-11-03T16:29:00.000-08:00

Link to book two in post below.

ch 1-5

These chapters are further explorations of the nature of sovereignty, the general will, and it's relation to the individuals who compose it. A few questions to think about:

-why is sovereignty indivisible? Why can the sovereign 'not be represented'?
-the general will isn't fallible--what does this mean? Does this mean political decisions are never in error under a social contract?
-What are the limits on sovereign power?

ch. 6-7

Getting down to brass tacks. Chapter 6 addresses the question of law--how we get from the abstract level of legitimacy to the actual, written law. How does he define law, and why must it always be 'general and not particular'?

Chapter 7 returns us to the question of what happens at the founding of a political society. We've already seen the formula for the social contract oath all citizens must give (1:6), but here we get into a little more detail. Apparently, it's not as egalitarian as he made is sound. Very smart, powerful clever men (this translation calls them legislators, but the French term is often translated as "lawgiver") who create the legal codes for a people--and 'give' them their laws. Historical examples, Rousseau tells us, include Moses, Lycurgus, and Mohammed.

-what is the task of the legislator? What role, if any, does the legislator play in the state itself? Finally, what advice does Rousseau give to would-be lawgivers at the end of the chapter?

ch. 8-10

These chapters are titled "The people". They all describe what sort of preexisting societies can be "given laws" and become a legitimate social-contract based political society? Why do you think he selects these conditions? Would any society meet this conditions today?

Note that at the end of ch. 10 he reveals where, in Europe, the potential for a social contract exists.

ch. 11-12.

You've worked hard enough at this point. The final two chapters aren't required. This is plenty of Rousseau to try to digest in a weekend.

Feel free to use this discussion thread, and the one below, to begin to think about any of my questions, pose your own, or generally comment on Rousseau.

Next Week's readings, and a reading guide to Rousseau, Book I

2005-11-03T12:37:00.000-08:00

We'll begin the next political ideology, which I call "Strong Democracy." Rousseau's Social Contract serves as a founding and basis for this theory in the same way Burke is the 'father' of classical conservatism. Rousseau's is a challenging and contradictory work, however, and the reading for Tuesday will be difficult.

Here is chapter ONE and chapter TWO.

(Thursday's readings--by John Dewey and Ben Barber--on on UWB e-reserve. Remember, the password is 'halfmoon')

As to Rousseau, a bit of background. In previous work (especially, the Discourse on the Origins of Inequality) Rousseau had expressed skepticism about the value and wisdom of human social/economic/technological progress--in other words, he was dissenting from the enthusiastic embrace of the enlightenment. This might make you think his sympathies lie with conservatives like Burke, and you'd be wrong. In This book, The Social Contract, he seeks to explain how a political society might be just. As you read along, you'll see him being skeptical about nations actually being in a position to be "given" a social contract, so some semblence of pessimism remains. But, the upshot here is that society can be legitimate and worthwhile, but only if and when it is radically democratic.

What does this mean? Too soon to say. Instead, let's begin with a look at how Rousseau begins.

Book I

--chapter 1

The first paragraph is worth quoting here:

MAN is born free; and everywhere he is in chains. One thinks himself the master of others, and still remains a greater slave than they. How did this change come about? I do not know. What can make it legitimate? That question I think I can answer.

Our freedom is lost in society because we've become dependent on each other. Like liberals, Rousseau assumes that individual autonomy is central to freedom. Unlike liberals, Rousseau thinks this is entirely impossible in a modern society.

So, he's signalling here that even though we'll likely remain "in chains" that this situation can still, potentially, be legitimate.

--chapter 2-4

The discussion that's most relevant here is his critique of those (like several defenders of slavery) "derive right from fact"--that is, they base their theory of what ought to be based on what is, or has been. Several defenders of slavery employed this tactic. The right of the strongest and slaver are two variants of this approach, and Rousseau skewers them nicely. (reading question: What, according to Rousseau, is wrong with these approaches?)

--ch. 5

We must, Rousseau says, return to a 'first convention' if we're to figure out what sort of government is legitimate. In other words, Rousseau is announcing himself to be a social contract theorist, as you probably gathered from the title (like Locke, but unlike Mill and Burke).

--ch. 6

What kind of social contract should we have? What conditions must it meet? Rousseau says here:

"The problem is to find a form of association which will defend and protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each associate, and in which each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone, and remain as free as before." This is the fundamental problem of which the Social Contract provides the solution.

You should find this puzzling. If it sounds to you like Rousseau wants to have his cake and eat it too, well, I wouldn't blame you. Can he pull it off? Read on to...

"Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole."

Read carefully. Read the following paragraph, the last of the chapter, carefully. I don't necessarily expect this to be clear to you, but try to figure out what's going on here, or your best guess.

ch. 7

"The Sovereign" is the body politic--the thing we just created, and placed all our power in, in the previous chapter. What does it feel like to live as part of/under the power of the sovereign? What role do we have in it?

Also--this chapter contains one of the most infamous and seemingly contradictory statements you'll see this quarter. Identify it and tell me what you think Rousseau means by it. (hint: it's about freedom)

ch. 8-9

Rousseau discusses the changes in the nature of morality (8) and property (9) as we enter into a social contract and a civil society.

At the end of chapter one, you should be a bit baffled by Rousseau's repeated use of the phrase "general will". What, precisely, is this strange thing? Read on, dear readers, to chapter two.

Thursday's reading

2005-10-24T15:46:00.000-07:00

The first reading for conservatism is a one-act play. Hanah More's Village Politics. Read it here. Even if you don't have a chance to read it before Thursday's class, print it out and bring it. We'll go over it in class.

On (positive) liberty

2005-10-24T15:29:00.000-07:00

There are a lot of interesting blogs with good political theory content. I'll point out posts of potential interest to what we're studying. Here's a blog post by a philosopher on what "liberty" means, and why "liberalism" is a term we shouldn't give up on. It makes, I think, a good point, and might be of some interest for those of you working on the second paper topic--whether you agree with her or not, it might spark some thought.

Here's the money quote:

The whole aim of liberalism is to see it that people have options--that no one is stuck doing the drudge work I did permanently because they don't come from rich families. The market won't make that happen--that is simply an empirical fact.

She illustrates this point with a personal example.

Of course, if you reference her specific arguments in her paper, you'll need to cite them.

Next Tuesday's reading

2005-10-20T12:09:00.000-07:00

This was originally and incorrectly titled "thursday's readings." These readings are for Tuesday, the 25th. Tomorrow. Sorry for any confusion....

Harriet McBryde Johnson, "Unspeakable Conversations" is here.

For Michael Cummings, "Children's Right to Vote" follow the following steps.

Follow this link,

Click on "electronic reserves and reserve pages"

Search for my course, either by changing the search term to instructor and searching for "watkins" or by number (362)

At this point, you'll be asked for a password. Type in "halfmoon"

Then you'll have a list of links to the Reserve readings. Cummings is listed 4th. Click it for a PDF file of the reading. It's five pages long. If you're printing, save time and paper by printing pages 3-7, as pages 1 and 2 are front cover material.

Paper topic and instructions

2005-10-14T21:19:00.000-07:00

Your first analytic essay, due 10/27. Here is a paper topic for you:

1) "Locke and Mill both provide a foundation for a set of liberal individual rights. However, they use entirely different methods for establishing the foundations of those rights. In this paper, compare and contrast the foundations for liberal individual rights of Locke and Mill. Which foundation provides the most compelling justification? Why? In the course of giving your answer, address the strengths and weaknesses of both approaches."

Here's another one:

2) Liberal political philosophy, at its outset, had a strong connection to capitalism as a practice and a social system. As we entered the 20th century, however, the connections between the principles of liberal theory have capitalism in practice have seen increased tensions. Capitalism and liberal philosophy must now be understood as uneasy allies, at best,

Do you agree or disagree with that statement? Why or why not? Your paper should be a defense, criticism, or reformulation of the above statement, drawing on your analysis of the liberal philosophical texts discussed in this class.

Now, for the rules.

1) Choose one. Don't do both.

2) You should have a clear thesis statement, somewhere in the introductory paragraph, that indicates specifically what your argument is, and how you go about demonstrating it.

3) One of the silly rules students are sometimes taught is that you are not allowed to use the word "I" in your writing at all. I don't buy it. However, you don't need to constantly preface sentences with "I think." It's implied. Furthermore, I'm not terribly interested in what you think (in this paper) unless what you think is a) relevent to the argument you are making, and b) you can demonstrate you have good reasons for thinking it. I want your arguments, not your opinions.

4) As a policy, I don't read and give feedback on drafts. I do, however, read and give feedbacks on thesis statements, introductory paragraphs, outlines, plans for the paper, or any combination thereof.

5) This paper should be about 4 pages. Double spaced, normal margins, 10-12 point fonts. I know all the lengthening and shortening tricks, and besides it's the content that matters. Going over is OK, as long as you're not too wordy, going under might be OK if you have a very high content to word ratio.

6) Grammar and spelling count; organization and content count more. Do your best to write a clear, well organized paper, and proofread. That last word is not synonymous with spellcheck.

7) I'll gladly answer your questions as best I can. Just ask. Office hours are immediately following class. If you can't make it, the best alternative time would be at 8:00 AM or shortly thereafter. If you're unable to meet that early, or allergic to getting up that early, I might be able to meet with you after an 11-1:05 class, but do try and arrange a later meeting in advance if that is your wish. I may not be able to make that meeting if you suggest it that day.

JS Mill (1806-1873)

2005-10-12T12:07:00.000-07:00

John Stuart Mill is, along with Locke and Kant, one of the philosophers most associated with the liberal worldview. On Liberty, his most famous work of political philosophy, offers his take on that most liberal of questions, the proper limits of government activity. At what point has government gone too far--what should government, no matter how democratic and well-intentioned--never mess with? How do we figure out what those limits are?

Locke looked to the laws of God and nature to answer this question. Americans tend to look to the constitution and the bill of rights first. Mill doesn't do that--he doesn't assume an unimpeachable list of rights, be they from God of Nature or the smart guys who founded our country, exist. He sets out to defend freedom of speech (ch. 2) and lifestyle (ch. 3) on entirely different grounds.

Here's a list of discussion questions on Mill. Note that the final three refer to material in chapter 3, so we won't address them until next week.

If you'd like to get a discussion started on any of these, please do. Be sure to include the number of the question you are discussing. Alternatively, feel free to introduce your own Mill related topics and questions.

1) What do Locke and Mill have in common? Is Mill’s harm principle similar to Locke’s concept of natural law? Is it different?

2) What kind of reasons does Mill give for supporting freedom of expression and speech? How does this differ from Locke?

3) How (according to Mill) can we tell if an opinion is true or not?

4) Mill gives separate reasons for the importance for freedom of expression and ideas for a) ideas that are correct and true, b) ideas that are incorrect and possibly morally repugnant, and c) ideas that are partially true and partially false. What are his reasons for supporting each of these freedoms of expression?

5) Based on this text, how do you think Mill feels about democracy? Why?

6) What point is Mill making with his discussions of Marcus Aurelius and Plato?

7) Mill is clear that the government should not repress speech or make it illegal, but that is not the only potential source of repression. What does he think about the dangers of social limitations on ideas and expressions?

8) Why (according to Mill) should freedom of expression be extended to freedom of lifestyle and activity?

9) Describe Mill’s theory of human progress. How does progress take place, according to Mill? How does this differ from Marx’s view of progress? Why is Marx more certain human societies will progress than Mill is?

10) Not everyone is included among those Mill deems “suitable for liberty”. Who is excluded? Does this change your impression of Mill?

And one last big one:

11) Who provides a stronger foundation for liberal rights, Mill or Locke?

General advice on reading

2005-10-10T10:36:00.000-07:00

I like to think I've kept the reading load at a moderate level for much of this course, given the difficulty of the material. Of course, there will be days with a lot more reading assigned, and I'm sure you all have other classes with lots and lots of reading. If keeping up with reading is keeping you down, let me make a suggestion: This primer to "how to read in College" is really smart and helpful, and I wish someone had told me this when I was an undergraduate. It's written by Timothy Burke, a history professor at Swathmore and a really smart guy.

There's lots of good advice here, especially for those classes (you will probably encounter them eventually, even if you missed them so far) where hundreds of pages per week are assigned. I think he's particularly correct about highlighting/underlining. I use these techniques sometime when I'm reading for a specific point; for example, I'm currently working on a paper on the relationship between judicial review and democracy. So when I read boring legal theory as research, I highlight only those things relevant to a consideration of democracy, not that which is central to the argument the person is making. Becuase I'm reading for specific research purposes, and I'm not terribly interested in the central argument being made in this writing.

As a student, your assigned class reading is rarely that targeted; you're generally reading for general comprehension and analysis provided by the reading. If you do underline/highlight, you'll soon forget *why* you highlighted that point, as you have multiple and general reading goals. I suggest you always make a point of jotting down in the margins your reasons for highlighting a particular passage, rather than simply highlighting and wondering later what you thought was important.

Feel free to use this comment thread to ask any general questions about the course, how to study and read and understand political theory, and so on. I've tried to re-enable anonymous commenting, so if you'd rather not identify yourself you don't have to.

Class tomorrow

2005-10-10T10:26:00.000-07:00

Catching up tomorrow. The first hour will be devoted to the advances in liberal theory and practice associated with the American revolution. The second hour will be devoted to the theoretical advances in liberal political philosophy on the other side of the Atlantic around the same time; specifically those associated with the theory of free market capitalism (Smith) and free and functioning minds associated with "enlightenment" (Kant). Kant's hope that liberal and republican ideas, in practice, could lead to a more peaceful world go hand in hand with Smith's hope that a liberal economic order will lead to a more productive and wealthy world. Late 18th century is characterized by a sort of cautious optimism about the future. A few questions:

Is Madison (author of Federalist 10 and 51) best characterized as an optimist or a pessimist about human affairs? Why?

What powers does Hamilton (78) wish to give the federal courts, and why? Why might liberal political philosophy be particularly interested in a strong version of judicial review?

How does Kant define "enlightenment"? Can you think of examples of "enlightened" or "unenlightened" behavior common in our modern lives?

Why, for Kant, is it important that we be free in our private exercise of reason but not our public exercise of it?

What, according to Adam Smith, is the essence of human nature? How does this inform his political theory?

Next Thursday's reading

2005-10-08T10:59:00.000-07:00

The reading assignment for Thursday is the first two chapters of On Liberty by John Stuart Mill. Be warned, this is a bit larger than most reading assignments, so plan accordingly (in an ordinary book, chapter one is about 15 pages; chapter 2 is about 35). If you don't already have a copy, here you go:

Chapter 1
Chapter 2

Reading

2005-10-08T10:54:00.000-07:00

For Tuesday, you should read, in addition to the Kant and Smith chapters in Ball and Dagger, Kant's essay "Perpetual Peace." If you haven't already found a copy, there's a nice one here.

You need a number

2005-10-08T10:53:00.000-07:00

You need a number. If you were in class Thursday, you have one. If you were not, you'll need to contact me and get a number. I'll explain later.

Question

2005-10-04T11:11:00.000-07:00

"Locke is convinced that the legislative branch ought to remain under some sort of democratic control, but not so the executive branch."

Assuming this statement is true (and it is, trust me), why?

Post your best theory below. We'll discuss Thurs.

Thursday's online readings

2005-10-03T09:54:00.000-07:00

In addition to a few pages from Ball and Dagger, I'd like you to read The Federalist Papers (#10, 51 and 78) for Thursday's class.

Here they are:

10
51
78

For those of you planning your week, these are each essays of about five pages in length, but they're pretty dense. For those who don't know the background, these are from a series of essays written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay in 1787 and 1788, in an effort to win over public opinion for the new proposed constitution that would be adopted in 1789. They were published anonymously at the time under the moniker "Publius." Historians are pretty sure 10 and 51 were Madison's and 78 was Hamilton's.

Hobbes, Locke, and the origins of liberalism

2005-10-02T15:18:00.000-07:00

First, a practical matter--I've been informed that the bookstore ran out of Ball and Dagger's Ideals and Ideologies. I've been assured that they've got a couple dozen more books on order. The guy at the bookstore suggested I "go easy" on you since some of you won't have the book in time, but that's no fun at all! So here's where you can get the reading for Tuesday.

Hobbes. We're reading Leviathan (1651), slightly shortened versions of chapters 13 and 14. Here's an alternate version of those chapters. Here's a link to chapters 13-18; just read the first two chapters.

Locke. We're reading selections from "A Letter Concerning Toleration" (1689) and "Second Treatise on Government" (1690). Don't worry too much about tracking down and reading the selections from the LCT, but do try to read the relevant sections of the 2nd Treatise. Here's a link to the second treatise. Read chapter 2 (except paragraph 5), chapter 5 (all) and chapter 19 (paragraph 222-225 only).

So that's that.

This Tuesday, you're reading some excerpts from two theorists who are often associated with the beginnings of classical liberalism as a political ideology. This can be confusing, because Hobbes was most definitely not a liberal in his political views (he was a liberal, or at least a quasi-liberal, in his views on the nature of individuals, and the individual/society relationship.

Hobbes and Locke both use a theoretical device in the readings you'll be doing called "The State of Nature (SoN)". The SoN is what the theorist imagines life and the social world would be like if we were to remove all political power and authority.

Discussion question: What do Hobbes and Locke's visions of the SoN look like? How are they similar? How are they different? Why do they disagree?

Hobbes and Locke look to the SoN to determine what sort of government might be legitimate (that is, might have a rightful moral claim on our obedience). The presumption here is that legitimacy isn't just a given. Power isn't just to be accepted. "Might makes right" might occasionally be correct as a practical slogan, but alone it doesn't a moral point. Furthermore, both Hobbes and Locke use the state of nature to demonstrate that political power isn't legitimate without the consent of the people. While it's important to remember this doesn't lead to democracy, necessarily (not at all for Hobbes, to a very limited extent for Locke), this is a core liberal concept. Our rights, our liberty, begin with us. This starting point, oddly, doesn't prevent Hobbes from reaching positive conclusions about authoritarianism.

Discussion question: Does it make sense to say legitimate political authority relies on the consent of the people? Does consent need to be explicit, or can it be tacit? In your view, have you consented to be governed? Why or why not?

A couple more topics of discussion revolving around the readings from Locke.

In parts of this text we don't read, Locke suggests that the executive branch of government (King, President) needn't be democratically elected, but the legislative branch (Congress, Parliament) should and must be. Based on what you did read from Locke, can you figure out why he would reach that conclusion?

Locke's theory of property is among the most famous defenses of private property from a liberal perspective. It's surprisingly complicated; a good exercise would be to try to chart the steps in the argument. We'll go over some of them in class.

Discussion questions: Why does Locke conclude private property is legitimate, even though "God Gave the earth to men in common" (26)? What limits does Locke place on property acquisition? Why does the invention of currency (37) change those limits?

A student once said to me (regarding Locke's theory of property) "this is the theory of capitalism in a nutshell!" Do you agree? Why or why not?

Welcome!

2005-09-30T19:28:00.000-07:00

Welcome to the course website for BIS 362, Contemporary Political Ideas and Ideologies, UW-Bothell, Autumn 2005, meeting Tuesdays and Thursdays from 8:45 to 10:50. This website will serve the following purposes:

-general discussion of issues raised in class
-distribution of hand-outs, course announcements, etc.
-links to syllabus (coming in a month or so!) and other important documents
-links to various material of potential interest to students of political ideologies
-a place for you to ask me (or your classmates) questions, anonymously if you wish
-whatever else I (or you) decide to use it for

Here is the syllabus and course schedule. If you have any questions in the interim, you can email me or post them in the comments section for this post. I'm looking forward to the course.

First question

2005-09-29T22:20:00.000-07:00

I'd like a list of political opinions you hold. In the comment thread for this post, please leave a comment that contains a political statement that you hold. It can be about the way politics should be, or about the way they are, or about the difference between the two. Here are some examples.

"Politicians are corrupt, and we as a society need greater oversight of their activities."

"It's not fair or just to take tax revenue and use it to help the less fortunate--that should be a personal choice."

"A loving couple should be allowed to marry, without concern for whether they are opposite-sex of same-sex couples."

And so on. (please use something other than my examples).