Addendum

In the Social Contract reading guide, I completely forgot to mention the other phrase from Monday's reading assignment that ranks among the most famous we'll encounter in the course--in this case, also the most infamous. It's in the last paragraph of chapter VII: "This means merely that he will be forced to be free.

This should trouble you. How is it possible that we could say someone could be "forced to be free"? What could Rousseau possibly mean?

As a way of jump-starting a discussion Monday, I'd love to see as many of you as possible give your best explanation for what you think Rousseau means by "forced to be free." Does this phrase make any sense to you? Post your answers here please!

Rousseau, part II: The Social Contract

We begin this text with one of the three or four most famous lines we'll encounter this quarter:

"Man is born free, yet everywhere he is in chains."

This puzzling line should be interpreted in light of The Discourse on Inequality. Describe what Rousseau means by our "chains."

Chapter II presents an account of the state of nature that is much less detailed and simplified than the previous state of nature Rousseau told us about. Don't worry too much about that, just note that this view is his working assumption for this book.

Chapters III and IV are criticisms of the idea of the right of the stronger and the idea that slavery is in some way a "natural" feature of social life. How does he refute these ideas?

The cunundrum of chapter V: How do a group of individuals become a political entity; that is, "a people"? How do "all those people who live on that Island west of Britain" become "The Irish People"? The answer in chapter VI.....

The social compact (think contract). Chapter VI, paragraph four: read it. Read it again. Before continuing on, try to sketch a response to this problem. What kind of contract could provide what Rousseau is looking for here? If this seems near-impossible, well, that's because it is--this is a very high standard. Hobbes has us giving up everything but our right to defend our own life, and Rousseau says we need a social contract that makes us as free as we were before.

The answer should be puzzling. Total alienation. What do you think that means to Rousseau?

(note: the key to all this is Rousseau's concept of the general will, which is asserted but not explained in the last line of pg. 470. Book II is all about the general will, so move on and comfort yourself with the thought that Rousseau will explain this weirdness soon enough, or at least try to)

Chapters VII and VIII further explain the nature of the political community we've created. How important our our individual identities in all of this? Why does Rousseau place so little emphasis on individuals compared to, say, Locke?

The final chapter of book I gives an account of property under these conditions. Will private property exist? What limitations will be placed on it.

Rousseau

Just realized I didn't post any questions or a reading guide for Rousseau, sorry about that!

As you move into part two of the Second discourse....well, first, stop and enjoy the glorious rhetorical flourish he uses to initiate the discussion in the second half. His attack on private property, here, is premature. He's been explaining a state of nature in which humans are more like animals than the people we recognize--no language, no culture, etc. So obviously, the first move away from the state of nature can't be property. Look at his discussion of concepts and language--people in the state of nature couldn't even conceive of the concept of property, let alone make a claim for it.

So the first part of part II is devoted to explaining the various stages and steps of how we descend from the state of nature into modern society. There are various developments, and they can be grouped into three categories: psychological, social/political, and technological. As you read this, try to keep a list of the various developments, with particular attention to the ways they might interact with and encourage each other.

Eventually, this leads to the moment of the "bad social contract." As with our first two texts, keep an eye open for that moment in the text. What is nature of this social contract, and why is it bad, in Rousseau's estimation?

Rousseau knows better than to suggest that American Indians are in a true state of nature, but he does argue they are closer to that state than we (European civilization) are. In what ways does their world resemble the state of nature, and what similarities does it share with our world?

In the end, JJR returns, in a rather desultory fashion, to the original question proposed by the academy of Dijon: What is the origin of the inequality amongst men, and is it justifiable? What is his answer? Is this satisfying?

Rousseau has produced, with this text, a work of critical theory: He has offered substantial criticisms of both society and previous approaches to political theory. However, he offers very little by way of positive political theory here—that is, suggestions about what should be done to remedy this unfortunate situation. First, why wouldn’t JJR advocate a return to the state of nature, given his preference for that state? Secondly, can you imagine a positive political theory of another sort emerging from this critique? What might it look like? (We’ll return to this question why we read The Social Contract. Look for connections between these two works

Experimenting with the democratic classroom.

I have a question for all of you. On Wednesday, I lectured with overheads to guide me. I hadn't done that before. I've never really decided whether I prefer to use such visual aids to guide me classes. Suffice it to say that I see plusses and minuses to using them. So, I'll leave it up to you. PLEASE VOTE. In comments. Anonymous is fine, you're all on the honor system to vote once.

Overheads, yes or no? (Yes doesn't mean I'll use them all the time or following them rigorously and religiously, but just use them to guide us through most of class; furthermore, no doesn't mean I'll never use them--but if the vote goes this way, I'll use them a lot less. Either way, I'll cover most of the same material).

Book Review Assignment

Here are the instructions for the book review assignment. This should be about six pages in length (double spaced, 10-12 point font, normal margins, no tricks). A page or so shorter or a couple pages longer isn't a problem at all; the key is to answer the following questions in your essay.

If the bookstore is out of some or all of them, here are amazon links:

The Racial Contract, Charles Mills
The Sexual Contract, Carole Pateman
Seeing Like a State, James Scott
Liberalism and Empire, Uday Mehta

1) What political theorist or theorists is the author of this book engaging, indirectly or directly?

2) What is the principle criticism of the political theorist(s) who are engaged by this author?

3) How successful is are these criticisms?

4) How might the political theorist in question respond to these charges?

5) How does the criticism from the book under review change your view on the value of the political theory in question? Is this political theorist still relevant to our world? Why or why not?

Essentially, I'm asking you to imagine a discussion between the author of the book you're reviewing and a political theorist from this course. Mills and Pateman discuss several of the social contract theorists at great length; and and Mehta spends a great deal of time discussing Mill and Burke. Scott mentions Burke once or twice, but you'll have to do a bit more mental work to figure out which theorist or theorists Scott is in conversation with.

It is important to this assignment to be fair to both the author of the book and the theorist under criticism. Try to write an integrated paper that accomplishes all these tasks in essay form. Have fun, be creative, and bounce ideas off of me any time! If you have questions for me about this assignment, let me know and I'll try to answer them on the blog so everyone can have the benefit of an answer. These are all wonderful books, so don't worry too much about choosing the right one.

If you choose Scott's book, it is not necessary to read and discuss all chapters in parts II and III (you should read all of parts I and IV, and at least one chapter each from II and III carefully). The other three books are shorter and should be read in their entirety.

Locke, cont.

This is an open thread for all your Locke concerns, questions and comments. I'll throw out a rather largish question for discussion, which I hope we'll have time to tackle on Wednesday.

Are there potential contradictions amongst and within the basic laws of nature (life/liberty/health/property)? Give some examples of potential problems here, as well as potential legislative solutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reminder! Your first rough draft of your section of the social contract should be circulated to the rest of your group in ONE WEEK! If you haven't divvied up the section assignments, or don't know what yours is, you should email your group ASAP.

Locke questions for 1/19

1. Why does Locke separate the legislative function of government from the executive? Why are they separate, and how is the political “division of labor” carved up? (ch. 7, esp. sec. 88)
2. Chapter seven also sees the introduction of the concept of civil society. What is civil society? What function does it serve?
3. When a political society is formed, all individuals, Locke tells us, must consent to it. However, from that point on, the minority must often “submit to the determination of the majority”. (sec. 97) Why is this?
4. Chapter eight discusses the role monarchies have, and do, play in the history of political society. What makes monarchy potentially attractive? Why is it a bad idea, even when it is done very well?
5. Locke’s most explicit discussion of tacit consent can be found in section 119. What claim does he make for the power of tacit consent here? Is this persuasive? Is there a better way to deal with this issue?
6. Section 122 discusses the difference between foreigners and citizens (“members”). Does his distinction separate the strong case for tacit consent found in section 119?
7. What are federative powers? Why, according to Locke, should they be aligned with the executive function of government, rather than the legislative?
8. Why does legislative power need to be ongoing, rather than temporary?
9. Describe Locke’s “right to rebel.” When do we have it? Why do we have it? How does it differ from the counterpart right found in Hobbes’ political theory?
10. What is the relationship between the legislative function and the laws of nature? If the laws of nature are known by all who have reason and choose to use it, what kind of “human laws” would be appropriate? What kind would be inappropriate?

Lochner vs. New York

In class just minutes ago, I couldn't remember the name of this case. This is it. The majority used the logic of classical liberalism (freedom of contract) to strike down a working hour limit for bakers in New York. Oliver Wendell Holmes famously dissented. The decision and his dissent (at the bottom of the page) can be read here. Mr. Sumner is a prominent classical liberal thinker of those times.

Locke

Reading guide for Locke. First, remember that chapter one is simply a transitional chapter from the first treatise to the second treatise, introducing the topic. The good stuff kicks in in chapter two.


1) How does Locke’s conception of the State of nature differ from Hobbes’? Why
lies behind the different assumptions we find in these theorists?

2) Locke and Hobbes both reference the bible and scripture from time to time. How is religion important to Locke? How is this different from Hobbes?

3) What are the laws of nature? How do they differ from Hobbes’ laws of nature, in both form and content?

4) What “governs” men in nature according to Locke? Why is it not a “state of licence”?

5) Describe the “inconveniences” of the state of nature.

6) How does punishment work in the state of nature?

7) What is the “State of War” for Locke? Under what conditions do we find ourselves there?

8) Locke offers one of the most famous defenses of private property rights in chapter five. He begins second paragraph of the chapter by noting that “God…hath given the world to men in common,” but 10 pages later he has justified private property rights even if they generate great inequalities. How does he justify this, given his starting point? Trace the steps his argument takes here.

9) What is the difference between paternal power and political power? What does this difference suggest about the appropriate nature and scope of activities for government?

Six person groups

For those of you in six person groups:

1) The form and powers of government

Issues taken up in this section should include (but are not limited to) the branch(es) of government, the powers they hold vis a vis each other, the powers they hold vis a vis the citizens, the method through which members of each branch are chosen (and removed) and the rules for how the government makes decisions.

Instead of 1-5, I suggest you turn topic 1, above, into 1a and 1b. 1a would focus on the form government would take--how many branches, how they ought to be selected, how big they ought to be, how long they ought to serve, etc. 1b would focus on the powers of government--what government in general can and cannot do. 1b will have to work closely with 1a, since at some point he'll need to address the powers of each branch of government created by 1a. You'll also want to coordinate with #2 and #3 on the rights of individuals and groups, since you'll need to be careful to not give the government powers that directly violate those rights.

If you have another idea about how to add a section you'd prefer to pursue, that would probably be fine as well. Just let me know as soon as you've decided on it to get my approval and direction.

Social Contract groups

I have sent out emails to all groups. If you haven't seen it yet, check your email. If you don't have one from me to you and your social contract exercise group, contact me immediately to get information on your group.

Your first task--a rough draft (a couple of pages) of your section of the social contract is due January 24th. You should begin a discussion about who will do which section right away.

Groups with six people instead of five--look for a post tomorrow on how you should divide up the labor.

(Social contract exercise here). Scroll down for the five sections and questions you should try to address in those sections.

Hobbes, Day II

10 Questions to guide your reading:

1) On Wednesday, we talked about the "catch-22" that rational people in the state of nature are in--they want to make an agreement to get out of the state of nature, but because they are in a state of nature, agreements (contracts,covenants) are not enforcable. How do they construct a contract that solves this paradox?
2) What do we agree to give up when we enter into a social contract? Why do we have to give up so much? Why are we willing to give up so much?
3) Hobbes does not appear to have all that much to say about the qualities of leadership or the skills a good sovereign should have. Why isn't this a bigger issue for him?
4) Now that you have read about the Hobbesian social contract, think about chapter 16 again. Why/how is his concept of "artificial persons" connected to his conception of sovereignty?
5) Hobbes tells us that sovereigns by conquest are just as valid as sovereigns by contract. This would seem to undermine his social contract theory. Does it? How can this be?
6) The social contract is a moment of voluntary consent. However, Hobbes also allows for several forms of tacit consent. Why is this?
7) According to the logic of Hobbes' argument, can a sovereign conscript citizens (that is, forcibly send them into a military conflict)? Think of one Hobbesian argument for and against conscriptions.
8) Of the three potential kinds of commonwealth, why does Hobbes prefer monarchy?
9) How does Hobbes describe the liberty of subjects? Why is Hobbes unconcerned that we give all our rights and freedoms (except one) up when we join a commonwealth?
10) What happens when a commonwealth becomes so weak that it is, in Hobbes' terminology, "dissolved"? How can we tell if a commonwealth has been dissolved?

Some general discussion questions and a Hobbes open thread

Here's a few more general questions we might want to discuss tomorrow.

How would you characterize Hobbes' project in chapters 13-16? What is he trying to accomplish or demonstrate with these arguments?

We're left at this point with a pretty big problem--the laws of nature seem to be the foundation of a moral political society, but they don't seem to fit with Hobbes' description of the state of nature at all. How can we fulfill the second law of nature (to make covenants to seek peace) when we can't trust each other? How can we (by we I mean people in the state of nature) make a covenant that would successfully do this, under conditions of a state of war? (note: Hobbes gives us his answer in chapter 17. If you haven't already peeked ahead, I encourage you to give it some thought before you see his answer).

Where, according to Hobbes, does morality come from? Is his account satisfying? What other alternatives are there?

Post your thoughts on these questions, or other questions you find interesting or puzzling, or any other thoughts/comments you might have on Hobbes in this thread.

Hobbes, first reading assignment

Chapter Six

We begin our Hobbes reading with chapter six. I'm sure you've all been told at some point or another to be sure to define your terms in your own writing. I'm also pretty sure you've never taken that advice and ran with it quite as thoroughly as T.H. does here. One clue about Hobbes' general approach to political theory can be found in the very first paragraph here, where he discusses the two sorts of motion that can be found in animals. Philosophers have often spent a great deal of time and thought on the questions of how, and how much, and in what ways, humans are different from animals. Here, Hobbes starts with animals and is discussing "men" in no time. The transition is easy for him. What do you think this tells us about Hobbes' approach to political theory?

How does Hobbes define "Love" and "Hate" in this chapter? Are these definitions counterintuitive? What would be another alternative approach?

Read through the rest of Hobbes' definitions with an open mind, trying to see how they all fit together to form the beginnings of a "worldview." What can we say about the way Hobbes approaches the world from his definitions?

Chapter 13

"Nature hath made men equal," Hobbes tells us. But not literally so. What, precisely, does Hobbes mean by the assertion of natural equality?

"Natural equality" might sound, at first, like a recipe for peace, love and understanding, but Hobbes suggests it is, in fact, precisely the opposite. Why?

Hobbes in this chapter introduces the concept of the "state of nature." What is the state of nature?

Hobbes' pessimistic account of life in the state of nature is perhaps the most famous part of his political theory. It is summarized eloquently in the first full-length paragraph on page 171. This has lead many commenters, including many former students of mine, to hold the view that Hobbes thinks human nature is "evil." I find this to be a fundamental misunderstanding of Hobbes' theory. So if it's not that we're evil, why is life in the state of nature such so "nasty, brutish and short"?

In this war of every man against every man, Hobbes tells us, "nothing can be unjust." Why not?

Terms to know:

Equality of hope
Causes of Quarrel (competition, diffidence, and glory)
State of Nature
State of war

Chapter 14 and 15

Here Hobbes introduces us to the "laws of nature." Since there is no legal authority in a state of nature, what does Hobbes mean by "laws of nature"?

What is a contract, according to Hobbes? Why are contracts so difficult in the state of nature?

What are the first and second laws of nature (chapter 14)?

The third law of nature, Hobbes tells us, is justice (ch. 15, pg. 178). Earlier, he suggested that in the state of nature, no action is unjust. Has Hobbes contradicted himself? How can we reconcile these two views?

A character called "the fool" is introduced at the beginning of chapter 15. What does the fool believe? Why is the fool a fool?

Read through the rest of the laws of nature discussed in chapter 15. They are summarized, Hobbes tells us, with the following maxim (pg. 183): Do not that to another, which though wouldest not have done to thyself. Does this sound familiar? But how can all these nice laws be squared with what we've learned about the state of nature? (Hobbes begins to address this issue in the following paragraph. Read it, and indeed, all of the final six paragraphs of chapter 15, closely. He hints at how we'll answer this question, and also connects his theory back to his definitions from chapter six)

Chapter 16.

This is a short chapter, and a very difficult one. If you've made it this far and feel you're able to follow Hobbes' argument, good job. Prepare to be confused. Chapter 16 will appear to be a non-sequitor until we read the next reading assignment. Just try to keep clear the concepts of natural vs. artifical persons, actors, authors, authority, and "personated." The signifigance of all this will hopefully become clearer in the subsequent chapters.

Link to social contract scenario and assignment

here.

(note that this link, and the syllabus link, are identical in substance to the handouts given to you in class yesterday. They are stored online here for future reference and for those who missed the first day of class)

Link to syllabus

Here.