TSMIN 310 Course blog

Social Contracts

2005-03-10T00:23:00.000-08:00

Thanks everyone for the great presentations and questions on the social contract exercise. Use this as a thread for suggestions, complaints, various other comments and reflections on the experience and how if might be improved in the future.

I'll start: here's a couple of my ideas.

1) As some of you suggested today, have the presentations a little earlier, 1-2 weeks before the final draft is due, so you could incorporate a bit from the experience and questions you get.

2) Perhaps know the identity of your interrogators earlier on? (Although I kind of like the curveballs they were throwing you!)

3) Instead of emails to exchange ideas and drafts, I'd set up a separate blog for each group, and invite you to join the blog as "co-bloggers." Then, you'd post your draft on the due date, and your group members could give their suggestions and feedback through comments. I could construct the blog such that only other members of the blog (and me) could comment, but then, when you post your final version, we could open comments up to the rest of the class. Or not. Just a brainstorm on how to do this without cluttering up your inboxes, keeping everything in one place, etc.

Good ideas? Bad ideas? Other ideas?

Thanks everyone for a great class. Good luck on your final studying; feel free to send me your questions up to 24 hours before the scheduled final time.

Final Review

2005-03-09T14:04:00.000-08:00

Format:

4 short answers. Same as last time. 6-7 options, 1-2 paragraphs each. (40 %)
3 quotation IDs. Same as last time, but only from the second half of the course. 5 options. (20 %)
1 longer essay, 4-5 paragraphs. One question, but considerable leeway in both the theorists you addess, and the topics you engage them on. (40 %)

The focus will be on the second half of the course, but not exclusively so. I can't give you a list of topics that will exhaust everything you might want to discuss on the final, but I can tell you that the following topics will be of considerable value:

Mill

Fallibility
Harm principle
freedom of speech (reasons for)
different kinds of speech to be protected (and why)

Why was Mill a feminist?
Why was Mill a nervous supporter of democracy?
What is utilitarianism? How did Mill revise it to suit his approach?

Burke/Conservatism

Why was Burke nervous about social change?
Why did Burke prefer Wisdom over Reason?
Why was Burke nervous about capitalism?
Explain a Burkean/Morean position on the concept of "rights."
How is Burke different from modern conservatism?
What does Burke mean by politics as an "experimental science"?

Marx

What is a social class? (be precise)
What is historical materialism (phases of history, how history moves forward)
Why does Marx dig capitalism?
Why do we say Marx isn't a utopian socialist?
Explain Marx' conception of communism. Why is it inevitable as a result of a proletarian revolution?
Marx thinks that ideas don't matter much when it comes to understanding history and society. What does matter?
What picture of human nature do we get from Marx's estranged labor essay? What does that tell us about his views on capitalism?

Nietzsche

What is the difference between a good vs bad moral outlook and a good vs evil moral outlook?
Why does Nietzsche prefer the former?

Why does Nietzsche dislike egalitarianism?

social contract scheduling

2005-03-04T12:35:00.000-08:00

Random number generation has given us the following schedule:

Monday: groups 1, 4, 6
Wednesday: groups 2, 3, 5

That is all.

Social contract feedback/deadlines

2005-03-01T10:40:00.000-08:00

4/6 groups should have their feedback. I'm in an Epic Struggle For The Soul Of All Humanity with my laptop at the moment (typing this on my stupid, slow old laptop I thought I'd never have to use again), so the other two groups' feedback is unavailable. If I fail in my quest, I very much hope that my roommate, who works for a little computer company you may have heard of in Redmond, will be able to rescue those, and other documents.

Keep in mind that I'm raising two different kinds of issues. I'm raising a few ISSUES that you must deal with. But for many of you, I'm giving you a heads-up on some difficult questions you might encounter, or some people who might (very understandably) not take kindly to some feature of your social contract. You don't need to deal with the latter issues in your final draft, necessarily (although if you have a good response, it couldn't hurt). You do need to think about how to respond to such people.

Deadline changes from Class Monday:

Book review now due 3/7 (Monday). Electronic or paper. If you send it to me on Friday, I'll guarantee a return to you by 3/9. If you turn it in Monday, it's a maybe as to whether you'll get it back by then.

SC final drafts due 3/9 (Wednesday). This means 3/6 groups will give their presentations two days before the final draft is due. No big deal, presentations are informal.

Nietzsche

2005-03-01T06:31:00.000-08:00

This paper is taken from a collection of three papers called "On the Genealogy of Morality." Nietzsche is looking for a better way to understand where morality comes from--what it's history is. Genealogy is a method he uses. Ideas, concepts, and linguistic forms have evolved over time. The method of genealogy starts with the present--and looks backwards, to try to find an understanding of how we arrived at the present usage. Nietzsche deeply opposes the notion that our morality serves a simple purpose for us or that it serves the interest, simply and concretely, of one particular class. He finds these ways of thinking too simple, too "just-so", and not sufficiently attuned to the role of randomness in the evolution of human affairs (here, he's being a better reader of Darwin than Marx was, one could argue. Marx was wrong to think Darwin was telling a story of progress--rather, Darwin was telling a story of random chance and accidents without meaning leading to new forms of being).

Nietzsche's academic training was in a field called "philology." This field doesn't exist anymore, but it's best understood as a combination of philosophy and linguistics. In other words, his training is to look at the history of important words and their use.

One of Neitzsche's main points is that morality has non-moral origins. This point is made especially clear in sections 4 and 5 (909-910). When he so arrogantly says "If this book is incomprehensible to anyone and jars on his ears, teh fault, it seems to me, is not necessarily mine" (906), this is part of the reason why--we've fallen into the bad habit of internalizing moral theory--thinking of it as something real, natural, and a noble thing to have. One way Nietzsche often came to describe his own project was to think "beyond morality." This doesn't mean he's a amoralist, and that morality is just for suckers, and you should do what you can to get ahead, or anything like that (in fact, he would probably diagnose that mindset as a good example of a consequence of a particularly nasty form of moral reasoning. What he's interested in is the way meanings of concepts have shifted to give us moral rules to understand why our moral reasoning and thinking has the specific content it does. You could even do a Millian reading of this project--if moral reasoning is just the unintended consequences of terms like clean and unclean, it is in effect a form of dead dogma, and it's roots must be exposed, examined, etc.

If there is one point you need to get from this essay, it's this: Nietzsche discusses two forms of morality:

Good vs Bad
Good vs Evil

His take on the first is neutral to somewhat positive--his take on the second is decidedly negative. The first is the product of noble reasoning; the second is a product of slave or servant-based moral thinking. So, like Marx, he thinks your position in society shapes your moral reasoning. Unlike Marx, he finds a great deal more to admire in the moral system of the powerful than that of the weak. Your most important task as you read all this is to figure out why. And along the way--how do each of these forms of moral reasoning work? How do they differ? Why is good vs evil reasoning particularly dangerous? How does the story of the Lambs and the birds of prey (sec. 13) help us understand this distinction?

In several aphorisms (notably, 10 and 14) Nietzsche discusses resentiment, which is just French for resentment. It's generally left untranslated because Nietzsche gave it a very specific usage and meaning in this text. In context, what do you take it to mean for Nietzsche?

Nietzsche's advice at the end of the preface is good. These aphorisms are best understood through rumination. Stop, think, read again. It's your only hope :)

Marx (Updated)

2005-03-01T00:23:00.000-08:00

Update: Forgot to say this last night; remember, you're required reading has been decreased. You only must read part I and II of the Communist Manifesto, not III and IV.

Use this thread to pose questions about Marx, for discussion or to pose a question to me.

Key terms:

Capital
Social relations of production
Modes of production (Slave-based society, capitalism, feudalism)
Social Class
Historical Materialism
Dialectical change

Be prepared to explain the following three forms of estrangement/alienation:

Man's alienation from his species being
Man's alienation from his fellow worker
Man's alienation from his product

Be prepared to explain what it is that Marx likes about capitalism and what he dislikes about it. Be clear about the role of the division of labor under capitalism.

What, according to Marx (in the estranged labor essay) makes us distinctly human?

Marx argues that there are two significant classes in capitalist society—the bourgeois and the proletariat. How are these classes defined? What would Marx say to the suggestion that perhaps a rural peasant class might play a significant role in a communist revolution?

Marx argues that political ideals and theories should be analyzed by examining whose interests they serve. With that in mind, consider what Marx might say about liberal and conservative political thought.

According to Marx in The German Ideology, what happens to the division of labor in communist society? How could this be feasible?

Book review reminder

2005-02-23T15:18:00.000-08:00

As per Sean's request below:

Book review is Due Friday, March 4th. Here's a link to the original post detailing the assignment.

Sorry

2005-02-22T18:56:00.000-08:00

For the lack of posting. Hectic on my end. Hope your long weekend was a good one. I'll have feedback on your rough drafts tomorrow in class at the latest. For class, I'll finish up with Mill and Begin lecturing on Marx. No need to have read any Marx yet, I'll just be introducing him, given likely time constraints. At least 40 minutes with your groups, in case you need to review my feedback before you begin.

Grading scale

2005-02-15T11:25:00.000-08:00

Here's your grades:

98-100 4.0
95-97 3.9
93-94 3.8
90-92 3.7
88-89 3.6
86-87 3.5
84-85 3.4
82-83 3.3
80-82 3.2
78-79 3.1
75-77 3.0
73-74 2.9
71-72 2.8
68-70 2.7
66-67 2.6
64-65 2.5
62-63 2.4
60-61 2.3
58-59 2.2
56-57 2.1
54-55 2.0
51-53 1.9
48-50 1.8
45-47 1.7
42-44 1.6
40-41 1.5
38-39 1.4
36-37 1.3
34-35 1.2
32-33 1.1
30-31 1.0

Below 30 bad news

Mill, On Liberty, Chapters I and II

2005-02-10T08:30:00.000-08:00

This is an important and major philosophical text, but it's not well organized. My general advice is to just plough ahead and try to sort it out when you finish the chapter, reskimming certain sections as necessary. Mill is a liberal theorist. Like our previous liberal theorist, Locke, he'll offer an elaborate defense for why we should value something most people value anyway, without really thinking to hard about it (in Locke's case, property; in Mill's case, it's freedom of speech and lifestyle).

(of course, as a sidenote, perhaps I'm being naive about public opinion regarding freedom of speech--see here for an interesting report on a survey of high school students, teachers and principles on free speech. Observe with concern that 83% of high school students think "people should be allowed to express unpopular opinions," which means that fully one in six high schoolers presumably think we shouldn't! And only half of our nation's youth think newspapers should publish freely without government approval of stories. Parents, don't forget to teach your kids about the first amendment.)

Many people in our society, bolstered by the legal tradition surrounding the first amendment, have more or less Lockean reasons for defending freedom of speech. That is, we think speech, even mean, nasty vile speech, should be free because freedom of speech is a fundamental right. What I'm about to say is important, so pay attention: This is not the reason Mill gives for freedom of speech. I'm not saying Mill disagrees with this position, but it's not the reason he gives. Instead, he wants to tell us that freedom of speech, even for the most vile and reprehensible political speech, should be allowed because it is in our interests to do so.

Imagine, if you will, a neo-nazi setting up shop with her soapbox and literature on the stairs in the middle of campus. For 70 hours a week, she gives loud, angry speeches filled with hate and vitriol, and hands out literature in the same vein. You hear her every time you come to campus, unavoidably. Those of us with a rights-based approach to free speech, this person represents in many ways the unfortunate downside to freedom of speech. In other words, we have to tolerate her because she is within her rights, but we really with she would go away and stop exercising her speech rights.

In chapter one, be sure to note Mill's "harm principle" (which would be more accurately named the no-harm principle). This is Mill's liberal foundation. Think about a) how it's similar to Locke's concept of natural right, b) how it's different, and c) problems with the harm principle. Here's one problem for you: is it possible to make a clean, sharp distinction between other regarding and self regarding practices? What might some borderline cases be?

What does Mill think about the relationship bewteen democracy and freedom of speech?

One reason we have to have freedom of speech, Mill says, is fallibility. Explain.

In chapter two, Mill goes to great lengths to show why freedom of speech is valuable in the following cases:

Freedom of speech that is entirely false
Freedom of speech that is entirely true
Freedom of speech that is partially true and partially false.

Give an account of his reasons in each case.

Finally, consider some counter-arguments. Why might we want to consider restricting freedom of speech.

(Those of you doing "rights of individuals" in the social contract, compare your freedom of speech provisions to Mill's, just for fun. Did you come to similar conclusions?)

First Draft of social contract

2005-02-10T08:03:00.000-08:00

Instructions:

Please bring a hard copy to class. You should each be responsible for your particular section. If you can't attend, try to arrange for another member of your group to bring in a hard copy. Make sure your group number is displayed prominently for easy sorting.

There is no need for "connecting tissue" at this point (by this I mean, introductions, conclusions, making it one seamless document with a table of contents and that sort of thing). You can each turn in your own section.

Here is where I think your essay should be by Monday. You should take your original statement, and revise it in the following ways. First, you should try to incorporate as much of your group's feedback and suggestions as possible. Second, you should make an initial effort to "square" your section with the sections of the rest of your group. Third, you should make an explicit effort to acknowledge how theorists from class have influenced your position (if they have). Fourth, you should think about how to justify or "sell" your positions. Remember, you've got to convince 5000 people (or as many as possible; we don't have a majority rule or unanimity rule yet) that your position is correct. The key to this is also the difficulty to you--you've got to come up with reasons that very different people who might disagree with your politics would agree with your social contract.

This is a first swipe at each of these features. If you do them all really well, you won't need to do much but come up with a conclusion and merge the documents for the final draft. I don't expect any group to have done all of this thoroughly yet, but if you do, congrats!

Reading for Wednesday

2005-02-05T15:55:00.000-08:00

On Wednesday, we'll be discussing Classical conservatism. We'll be reading two conservative responses to the French Revolution. In many ways, the revolutionaries drew on some of the ideas of both Locke and Rousseau to justify their actions. Despite their differences, Locke and Rousseau share a deep dislike of tradition as a justification for arbitrary power, and that's what the revolutionaries correctly saw at work France circa 1789.

More and Burke were both British, and neither had a reputation we might consider "conservative." The French revolution alarmed them, and it was in the process of articulating what they found so objectionable about that revolution that they began to articulate a conservative philosophy. Conservative philosophy is inherently opposed to social contract theory. Try to think about why as you're reading.

A note on the Burke reading--it's a pretty stream of consciousness affair. In it's full form, it's 200 pages of reflections; no chapters; no sections, and very little structure (he wrote it in just a few months). So don't look for a carefully constructed argument; it's more a series of wise reflections. Burke is a complex thinker--he was unpopular amongst British politicians for a while because of his support for the American revolutionaries. His reasons for supporting were complicated and idiosyncratic; he disagreed very much with a good deal of revolutionary ideology.

The other reading is by Hannah More, a playwright and educator. She wrote this pamphlet under a pseudonym, "Will Chip." As you'll see fairly quickly, this piece is written as a two man, one act play extolling the virtues of British conservatism and traditionalism. Specifically, it is an attack on the revolutionary ideas of Tom Paine, an enthusiastic supporter of the French revolution and the "rights of man."

Here's a link to a version of "Village Politics" online.

And now--back to your midterm studying!

Midterm: Update

2005-02-04T08:06:00.000-08:00

I said this in class, but to repeat myself....

I won't be asking you any questions that would assume that you read any of the selections I asked you to read from Rousseau, the Social Contract, Book II, chapters 11-12, and Book IV. In other words (I don't have the book on me or I'd give you page numbers) you should be prepared to discuss material from the SC up to those three consecutive chapters in Book II that are all called "The People..."

Carry on...

Rousseau, Social Contract, Book II and IV, 7-9

2005-02-02T06:57:00.000-08:00

Some things to consider:

What is the general will? How does it relate to the sum total of particular wills? What obstacles prevent a people from ascertaining the general will? Why is the general will infallible?

What is the role of the Legislator? Isn't this contradictory to Rousseau's democratic politics? Why does Rousseau feel this is an important figure?

What kind of people are amenable to being given laws and participating in a social contract? Why is this form of government so difficult to achieve? (Bonus question: What is the only place in Europe Rousseau sees as being capable of given laws?)

What is a "civil religion" as you understand it? Why does Rousseau think such a thing is important to discuss? What is Rousseau's view of the appropriate role of religion in a political society?

Midterm review

2005-02-02T06:40:00.000-08:00

A couple of quick observations I made in class Monday. Remember my pledge: I promise not to use this exam to try to trip you up. This will be a straightforward exam on major themes from the course.

First, there are two parts. Short answers (60%). There will be 5-6 of these, and you'll respond to four of them. Your answers will require a couple of paragraphs, or about one full-sized page or a little more for those with averaged sized handwriting.

Compare and contrast Hobbes and Locke's views on the State of War and how such a state relates to the State of Nature.

What is Locke's explanation for why slavery might be permissible in some cases? How does Rousseau criticize this view?

Some have suggested that the discourse on inequality is really just an elaborate way of criticizing Hobbes and Locke's understandings of human nature. Explain.

Why, according to Hobbes, must we give up all our rights to the sovereign? What is the one exception, and why?

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

These are good examples of what I might do. You've got four texts to prepare for; in each case, the most important thing, that will be on the exam in multiple forms, is being able to explain the nature, function, and logic behind their view of the social contract--why it's necessary and wise, what form it takes, and what kind of world it creates. Also be able to explain each theorists account of human nature, life in the state of nature, "natural law," the state of war, the role of reason, the place of property in the theory, and so on.

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

Part II (40%). There will be some number, 6-8 is likely, of key quotes from the texts. In this section, you'll identify the author (and in Rousseau's case, the text) and explain briefly what the point is and why it's important to that theorist. Students think this will be harded than it is! Students don't do any worse or better on this section of my exams than any other so don't let it stress you out. The passages won't all be super-easy like "nasty, brutish and short" or "life, health, liberty and property" but it'll be something that contains content that makes it particularly identifiable as the theorist it is from. You'll also have at least two you can safely ignore.

Addendum

2005-01-28T14:31:00.000-08:00

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

2005-01-28T14:06:00.000-08:00

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

2005-01-25T13:05:00.000-08:00

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.

2005-01-21T11:19:00.000-08:00

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

2005-01-20T19:20:00.000-08:00

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.

2005-01-17T20:24:00.000-08:00

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

2005-01-17T20:16:00.000-08:00

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

2005-01-12T17:35:00.000-08:00

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

2005-01-11T09:28:00.000-08:00

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

2005-01-11T09:19:00.000-08:00

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

2005-01-10T15:24:00.000-08:00

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

2005-01-07T13:01:00.000-08:00

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

2005-01-04T14:30:00.000-08:00

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

2005-01-04T13:32:00.000-08:00

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

2005-01-04T13:28:00.000-08:00

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

2005-01-04T13:01:00.000-08:00

Here.

Testing, testing

2004-12-05T14:57:00.000-08:00

Welcome to the course blog for Modern European Political Theory, TSMIN 310, University of Washington-Tacoma, Winter 2005. Check here for announcements, study guides, and random thoughts relavent to the course. Also an online discussion forum, if you decide to use it as such.

The main text, a big fat book edited by David Wootton, has been ordered. THere are also four optional books. You'll all have to choose one of the four optional books. More details on that soon. A syllabus soon. Watch this space.

questions? concerns? give me a quick email, dwatkins (at) u (dot) washington (dot) edu