SP406 Principles of Political Theory

Lecturers:

Dr.Allyn Fives: Room 1004, Institute for Lifecourse and Society.

Office hours: Thursday: 11.00 – 1.00

Dr. Kevin Ryan: Room MY325, Aras Moyola.

Office hours: Monday 12.00–1.00; Thursday 12.00-1.00.

Course description:

What questions are fundamental when we consider politics and democracy? The two questions addressed in the first part of the course concern justice and legitimacy: what is the just distribution of benefits and burdens; and what is the legitimate exercise of political authority? The first part of the course also introduces the most keenly debated principles in contemporary political theory: utility, liberty, equality, publicity, solidarity, and legitimacy. In doing so it both discusses the work of the major figures in the discipline and also explores how their arguments are applied to real world political issues. Contemporary theorists draw on a range of philosophical traditions from the 20th century and earlier (including utilitarianism, liberalism, Marxism, republicanism, feminism, and Aristotelianism) and their work is highly relevant to attempts to deal with issues such as how to reduce domination and deprivation, how to deal with moral pluralism, what responsibilities we have for non-citizens, and how to justify public policy priorities.

In the second part of the course, many of these substantive concerns (in particular liberty, equality, solidarity, domination, and pluralism) are re-examined through the lens of democratic theory. In the lectures we examine two major currents in contemporary democratic theory: ‘deliberative’ democracy and ‘agonistic’ democracy. As a way of thinking about politics and ‘the political’, the concept of agonism emphasises struggle, contest and plurality. Originating in the athletic and oratorical contests of ancient Greece, this has recently come to characterise a distinct branch of democratic theory. Contemporary agonists have staged a critical debate with normative theories that prioritise rational deliberation and consensus as the means and ends of democratic politics. Although there are important differences in the respective approaches of deliberative and agonistic democrats, they also have certain things in common: the idea that democracy as it currently exists is constrained, even flawed, and the argument that the promise of democracy can only be fulfilled if people are both willing and able to play a more active and direct role in political life.

Learning Outcomes:

Students completing the requirements of this course will be able to:

  • Demonstrate critical thinking, including the ability to formulate an argument.
  • Analyse contemporary problems in light of the concepts and theories presented in class.
  • Identify concepts and questions that are central to Western political thought.

Method of Assessment

Students are required to write a mid-term essay (details will be announced in class) and sit a two-hour exam at the end of the semester. The exam paper is in three sections,all of which must be answered.

Reading for this Course

The core readings for each topic are listed week by week below.

Please note that there is no single textbook for this module, but there are a number of useful general texts in the library, including the following:

Farrelly, C. (2004) Contemporary Political Theory: A Reader, Sage.320.011 CON

Fives, A. (2013) Political Reason: Morality and the public sphere. 320.01 FIV

Plant, R (1991) Modern Political Thought.320.01 PLA

Kymlicka, W (2002) Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction.320.50904 KYM

Morrow, J (1998) A History of Political Thought: A Thematic Introduction.320.011MOR

Timetable:

Monday, 11am – 12pm, AM250

Thursday, 3pm – 4pm, AM250

Dr. Allyn Fives / Dr. Kevin Ryan
Week 1 / No Lecture on Monday of week 1 / Week 7 / Problematizing Democracy
Introduction / Problematizing Democracy
Week 2 / Philosophy & Public Affairs / Week 8 / Deliberative Democracy
Reasonableness & Virtue / Deliberative Democracy
Week 3 / Reasonableness & Virtue / Week 9 / Agonistic Democracy
Utility & Liberty / Agonistic Democracy
Week 4 / Utility & Liberty / Week 10 / Bank Holiday
Liberty & Equality / Agonistic Pluralism
Week 5 / Liberty & Equality / Week 11 / Agonistic Pluralism
Legitimacy & Justice / Embodying Politics
Week 6 / Legitimacy & Justice / Week 12 / Embodying Politics
Course Review / Course Review

Topics and Reading List

Week 2: Philosophy & Public Affairs

Political theory is the one branch of philosophy most closely concerned with public matters. Political theory can provide insight into the fundamental problems of modern politics (including domination, inequality, global justice, and moral disagreement); and it can draw on a range of philosophical traditions from the 20th century and earlier (including utilitarianism, liberalism, Marxism, republicanism, feminism, and Aristotelianism).

What questions does political theory attempt to answer? The two most important questions (the ones that we will be concerned with in this course) are: What is the just distribution of benefits and burdens? What is the legitimate exercise of political power?

Reading:

Allyn Fives (2016) The role of philosophy in public matters. In Fives & Breen (Eds.) Philosophy and Political Engagement (Palgrave) [Blackboard]

Jonathan Wolff (2011). Ethics and Public Inquiry. London: Routledge. Introduction[Blackboard]

Michael Sandel (2009). Justice: What is the right thing to do? Chapter 1. 320.011 SAN[Blackboard]

Philip Pettit (2006). Why and how philosophy matters to politics. In R.E.Goodin and C.Tilly, eds,Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Studies. 320 OXF

Week 2 – 3: Virtue and Reasonableness

According to Aristotelians, justice requires that we each receive what we deserve, and our desert (or merit) is a function of our virtuous activity in contributing to the achievement of society’s common goods.

Questions: In a modern society, can we agree about what is ‘good’ and a ‘virtue’? Or instead is it the case that we cannot expect others to agree with us about these highly controversial ideas? If we answer in the affirmative to the latter question, a key requirement of politics is reasonableness: that is, a commitment to appeal to and use ideas that can be made public in the sense that others can be expected to accept them.

We will look at what Aristotelians (Alasdair MacIntyre) and liberals (John Rawls) have argued and in particular concerning the phenomenon of moral pluralism and how it relates to children. Do parents have a right to ‘share a way of life’ with their children (i.e. the right to socialize and educate their children in such a way as to promote and inculcate their values)? Does society have the right to promote certain values (e.g. reasonableness, autonomy) among all children, even when parents are opposed to this?

Introductory Reading:

Will Kymlicka (2002) Contemporary Political Philosophy. Chapter 6. 320.50904 KYM

Further Reading:

Allyn Fives (2013) Political Reason. Chapter 6. 320.01 FIV

Amy Gutmann (1995). Civic Education and Social Diversity. Ethics, 105(3), 557-579. [Full text on-line at NUI Galway].

Alasdair MacIntyre (1984). Is patriotism a virtue? In Ronald Beiner (Ed.) Theorizing Citizenship. 323.6 THE [Blackboard]

John Rawls (1989). The Domain of the Political and Overlapping Consensus. The New York University Law Review, 64(2), 233-255. [Full text on-line at NUI Galway].

Michael Sandel (2009). Justice: What is the right thing to do? Chps 8 & 10. 320.011 SAN

Week 3 – 4: Utility and Liberty

According to the utilitarian, an act is right insofar as it promotes happiness.

Questions: Is utilitarianism as a philosophical approach ideally suited to politics (if not to personal life)? Is utilitarianism compatible with respect for individual liberty, or is it instead a threat to personal freedom?

Utilitarianism requires us to get our ‘hands dirty,’ for instance, when we make tough decisions about the distribution of scarce resources. Can utilitarianism justify these tough decisions, such as when we decide on public policy priorities? We look at the example of the use of torture against accused terrorists, restricting freedom of expression so as to maintain order, and experimental studies for evidence-based services.

Introductory Reading:

Michael Sandel (2009). Justice: What is the right thing to do? Chapter 2. 320.011 SAN[Blackboard]

Further Readings:

Allyn Fives (2008) Political and Philosophical Debates in Welfare. Chapter 2. 361 FIV

Robert E. Goodin (1995) Utilitarianism as a public philosophy. Chapters 1-2. 171.5 GOO[Blackboard]

HLA Hart (1979) ‘Utility and Rights’, Columbia Law Review, 79(5), 828–46. [Blackboard]

Will Kymlicka (2002) Contemporary Political Philosophy. Chapter 2. 320.50904 KYM

Peter Singer (1993). Practical Ethics. Chapter 2. 170 SIN

Raymond Plant (1991). Modern Political Thought. Chapter 4.320.01PLA

Week 4 – 5: Liberty and Equality

According to Isaiah Berlin, we should protect each person’s ‘negative’ liberty (i.e. their freedom from interference), and we are never justified in coercing another so as to make them free in the ‘positive’ sense(i.e. the freedom to do this and the freedom to be that).

Question: Do we not also have duties to help others obtain the resources needed to lead their own lives or even to lead valuable lives?

One alternative approach is that, although we should not coerce others to be free, we should help others obtain the background conditions of positive freedom.

In addition, according to John Rawls,after guaranteeing the liberty of each (freedom from interference, as Berlin defines it) we should prioritize the interests of the least well off.

Introductory Reading:

Will Kymlicka (2002) Contemporary Political Philosophy. Chapter 3. 320.50904 KYM

Further Reading:

Isaiah Berlin (1958). Two Concepts of Liberty. In Henry Hardy (Ed.) Liberty (pp. 166-217). 323.44 BER

Robert Nozick (1974). Anarchy, State and Utopia. Chapter 7. 320.101 NOZ

John Rawls (1971). A Theory of Justice. Chapters 1-3. 320.011 RAW[Blackboard]

Joseph Raz (1986). The Morality of Freedom. Chapter 15. 323.44 RAZ

Week 5 – 6: Legitimacy and Justice

Legitimacy is a matter of political power; justice is a matter of the distribution of benefits and burdens.

Questions: Are there different forms of State power, such that we can distinguish between coercion, interference with liberty, and control? Even if the State’s power is legitimate, is it a separate matter whether we have a duty to obey the State?For power to be legitimate, must it be democratic? Can an unjust society be legitimate?

For liberals, people are free insofar as no one does interfere with their liberty, and people can be free in unequal and undemocratic societies. According to republican theorists, the most important issue is the extent to which some individuals or groups have the capacityto interfere with the freedom of choice of others and therefore people are free only in democratic and egalitarian societies.

Introductory Reading:

Philip Pettit (2012). On the People’s Terms. Introduction. 321.86 PET

Further Reading:

Allyn Fives (2017) Evaluating Parental Power. Chapter 5. 306.874 FIV

Will Kymlicka (2002) Contemporary Political Philosophy. Chapter 7. 320.50904 KYM

Philip Pettit (2012). On the People’s Terms. Chapter 3. 321.86 PET

Judith N. Shklar (1989) “The liberalism of fear,” in N. Rosenblum (ed.) Liberalism and the moral life (Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press), pp. 21–38.[Blackboard]

Week 6: Course Review and exam preparation

The final lecture is set aside for revision and exam preparation.

Week 7: Problematizing Democracy

Part 2 of the course begins by comparing two very different ways of theorising democracy. The first is an understanding of democracy as a process of ‘aggregation’ whereby the ‘will of the people’ or the ‘common good’ is achieved through voting and elections. Proponents of this approach argue that individual interests and preferences invariably conflict, and thus by aggregating these preferences we arrive at a collectively binding decision regarding who should govern. In contrast to this, Richard Rorty uses a broad conception of ‘language’ to theorise the relationship between liberty and solidarity. This necessitates a more encompassing understanding of ‘the political’, and this will serve as a starting point as we begin to move towards ‘deliberative’ and ‘agonistic’ approaches to democratic theory.

Core readings:

  • Shapiro, Ian (2005) Aggregation, Deliberation, and the Common Good, from his The State of Democratic Theory.321.8 SHA
  • Rorty, Richard (1989) Chapter 1 (the Contingency of Language) from his Contingency, Irony, Solidarity.191 ROR

Further Reading:

Rorty, R. (1989) Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity

Rorty, R. (1998) Truth and Progress

Rorty, R. (2007) Philosophy as Cultural Politics

Rorty, R.(1998) Achieving our Country: leftist thought in twentieth-century America

Rorty, R. (1996) ‘Idealisations, Foundations and Social Practices’’, in S. Benhabib (Ed) Democracy and difference:contesting the boundaries of the political

Rorty, R. (1998) Against Bosses, Against Oligarchies: A Conversation with Richard Rorty

Malachowski, A. R. (2002) Richard Rorty, Volume 3 Politics, Irony and Solidarity

Festenstein, M. and T. Simon (2001) Richard Rorty: Critical Dialogues

Conant, J. (2000) ‘Freedom, Cruelty and Truth: Rorty versus Orwell’, in R. Brandom, Rorty and His Critics

Saatkamp, H. J. (1995) Rorty and Pragmatism: the philosopher responds to his critics

Week 8: Deliberative Democracy

This week weexamine Jürgen Habermas’s theory of deliberative democracy, focusing in particular on how this is anchored in his social theory of ‘communicative action’. Habermas’ political theory is basedon the insight that the democratic process can be (and ought to be) guided by implicit norms which are built into the structure of communication, which‘push’ interlocutors to try to reach mutual understanding and agreement. According to Habermas, the question ‘why?’ (why did you say that, why did you do that) acts as a ‘warranty’ against insincerity, deceit and manipulation. We will look at criticisms of Habermas’ theory in subsequent weeks, but first we need to gain an understanding of how he builds his theory, and how this relates to a specific way of thinking about ‘consensus’.

Core readings:

  • Rehg, William (1996) ‘Translator’s Introduction’ to Jürgen Habermas, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy.340.115 HAB
  • Eriksen, E. O. and Weigård, Chapters 3 & 6 from their Understanding Habermas: Communicative Action and Deliberative Democracy. 300.1 HAB.E

Further Reading

Eriksen, E. O. and Weigård, J (2003) Understanding Habermas: Communicative Action and Deliberative Democracy (Esp. Chapter 4)

Habermas (1987 & 1984) Theory of Communicative Action (2 volumes)

Habermas, J (1996) Between Facts and Norms

Habermas, J (1984) Communication and the Evolution of Society

Habermas (1998) The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory (pp. 39-46 and Section V)

Habermas, J., ‘The Public Sphere’, reproduced in Goodin, R. & Petit, P (Eds) (1997) Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Anthology

Benhabib, S (Ed) Democracy and difference:contesting the boundaries of the political

Cooke, M (1994) Language and Reason

Cooke, M (2006) Re-presenting the Good Society

Delanty, G. (1999) ‘Discourse and Democracy: Habermas’ Theory of Modernity’, in his Social Theory in a Changing World: Conceptions of Modernity

Dryzek, J. S. (1995)‘Communicative Rationality and Cultural Values’, in White (Ed) The Cambridge Companion to Habermas

Elster, Jon (Ed) (1998) Deliberative Democracy

Gutman, A. & D. Thompson, Deliberative Democracy Beyond Process, in Farrelly, C. (2004) Contemporary Political Theory: A Reader, pp223-59

Held, D. (1990) Introduction to Critical Theory (see Chap. 9: ‘Introduction to Habermas’)

White, S. K. (1995) ‘Reason, Modernity, and Democracy’, in White (Ed) The Cambridge Companion to Habermas

Week 9: Agonistic Democracy

This week we focus on Mouffe’s theory of ‘agonistic democracy’, which is very different from Connolly’s way of thinking about ‘agonistic respect’. The central questions for this week concern the (alleged) impossibility of consensus without exclusion, and also Mouffe’s insistence that all forms of politics, including liberal democracy, presuppose some type of friend/enemy relation. According to Mouffe, conflictis not merely an inevitable feature of the democratic process. The more important – and possibly troubling – part of her argument is that democracy is threatened by attempts to arrive at consensus.

Core readings:

  • Mouffe: Chapter 2 (Politics and the Political) from On the Political (320.5 MOU) & Chapter 4 (For and Agonistic Model of Democracy) from The Democratic Paradox321.8 MOU
  • Mouffe, C. (2013) Agonistic Politics and Artistic Practices, from her Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically. 320.01 MOU

Additional Readings:

Mouffe, Chantal (2012) Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically

Mouffe, Chantal (2005) On the Political

Mouffe, Chantal (2000) The Democratic Paradox

Mouffe, C (1996) ‘Democracy, power, and the "political"’, in Benhabib, S (Ed) Democracy and difference:contesting the boundaries of the political.

Mouffe, Chantal (1998) ‘Radical Democracy: Modern or Postmodern?, in Andrew Ross (Ed), Universal Abandon? The Politics of Postmodernism, EdinburghUniversity Press, Edinburgh.

Mouffe, Chantal (1996b) ‘Deconstruction, Pragmatism and the Politics of Democracy’, in Chantal Mouffe (Ed) Deconstruction and Pragmatism, Routledge, London and New York.

Laclau and Mouffe (2001) [1985] Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics (Chapters 3 & 4).

Laclau and Mouffe (1987) ‘Post-Marxism without Apologies’, New Left Review, 166: 79-106.

Torfing, Jacob (1999) New Theories of Discourse: Laclau, Mouffe and Žižek (Chapters 13 & 14).

Smith, Anna Marie (1998) Laclau and Mouffe: the Radical Democratic Imaginary.

On Hegemony

Gramsci, Antonio (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks

Martin, James (1998) Gramsci’s Political Analysis: A Critical Introduction

Fontana, Benedetto, Hegemony and Power: On the Relation between Machiavelli and Gramsci

Week 10: Agonistic Pluralism

Note: Monday of this week is a Bank Holiday

You have already encountered the concept of moral pluralism in Dr. Allyn Fives’ lectures, and we touched on pluralism when we looked at the idea of aggregative democracy in week 7 of the course. The issue of pluralism is also implicit in Habermas’ notion of consensus, but according to Connolly, both the aggregative and deliberative understandings of democratic pluralism are wholly inadequate is dealing with the question of identity and difference, which is also the question of inclusion/exclusion. Our focus in these lectures will be on how Connolly engages with the notion of ‘pluralism’ in arguing for ‘pluralisation’, and how this foregrounds his theory of ‘agonistic respect’.

Core readings:

  • Connolly: Introduction (The Pluralist Imagination) from his Ethos ofPluralization. 321.8 CON
  • Connolly: Introduction from his Identity/Difference: Democratic Negotiations of Political Paradox. 320.01 CON

Additional Reading:

  • Kalyvas: ‘The democratic narcissus: the agonism of the ancients compared to that of the (post)moderns’, inSchaap, A. (ed) (2009) Law and Agonistic Politics

Further Reading

Connolly, W. (2005). Pluralism

Connolly, W. (1995) Ethos Of Pluralization

Connolly, W. (2002) Identity/Difference: Democratic Negotiations of Political Paradox

Campbell, D. and M. Schoolman (2008) The new pluralism William Connolly and the contemporary global condition (on order)

Schaap, A. (ed) (2009) Law and Agonistic Politics

Schaap A (2007) Political theory and the agony of politics. Political Studies Review 5:

56-74.

Honig B (1993) Political Theory and the Displacement of Politics. Ithaca and London: