History of Political Thought

2021/2022

 

Gianfranco Pellegrino gpellegrino@luiss.it

 

Philip Schofield p.schofield@ucl.ac.uk

 

1. Subject matter

 

This course is an introduction to the history of political thought, from Plato to J.S. Mill. It will cover the following models of political theory: Plato’s ideal city (understood as a kind of anti-political inegalitarian view), Aristotle’s politics (understood as a virtue-based approach to politics), Aquinas natural law theory, Hobbes’ and Locke’s contractarian views, Hume’s conventionalist rule-utilitarianism, utilitarianism (focusing on theological models as well as on Bentham and Mill’s theories), democratic thought (mainly Rousseau).

 

2. Course objectives

 

The main aim of this course is to provide the students with a view of the historical underpinnings and evolution of classical and modern political thought, making them able to use historical notions and texts in social science discussions and research.

The basic skills to be assessed are the following ones:

1. ability to read historical texts in their context, and in contrast with other (contemporary and coeval) texts;

2. ability to grasp the connections between premises and arguments, and to find them in the texts

3. ability to put forward and defend one's own interpretations of a given text, during guided discussions;

4. ability to emphasize similarities and differences between historical approaches and contemporary views and issues;

5. capacity to give articulate oral and written expression to critical analytical thinking, in a thesis-driven, analytical essay format.

 

3. Class format

 

The course employs both lectures and seminars to provide the students with the necessary skills to approach the history of political thought. In particular, the course will be organized as follows:

-              on Wednesdays, a front lecture will introduce the main ideas of a specific author;

-              on Thursdays, an online seminar will focus on some excerpts (the complete list of readings is below, §6).

-              on Fridays, students will present and discuss short commentaries (350 words maximum) to the texts discussed in Thursdays classes (see below § 4).

N.B.: Thursday and Friday classes are not front lectures, where professors talk to students, but require active engagement and participation.

 

4. Requirements, final assessment and course policies

 

The final assessment for this class will be based on:

1.           20%: attendance and active participation. Attendance will be checked. No absences can be excused, except for certified health reasons, supported by an official statement (e.g., a written statement from a physician or another certified health care provider).

2.          35%: short commentaries. Students will be asked to write and present 300-350 words commentaries to the passages of the author(s) read and discussed during Wednesdays and Thursdays meetings. A short commentary is a reaction to a text or an idea. The point of a short commentary is to convey critical points, a thesis, or criticisms, assuming to address an audience who is relatively familiar with the text; hence, a summary is neither necessary nor desirable. One could, for example, take on some aspect with which one agrees or defending her view. The capacity to deliver your ideas in a limited time will contribute to the general evaluation.  Only your best reaction piece will count towards your grade.

Students who do not present a short commentary on Fridays must write two final take-home papers (see below).

3.          45%: final take-home paper.

Requirements:

a. the paper may (although it should not necessary) be a longer version of a short commentary;

b. the paper should deal with at least one passage from one author, and no more than two passages, taken from the works listed in §5 below;

d. The length of the paper should be between 2,000 and 4,000 words, footnotes and bibliography included. The word count requirement must be strictly observed. If the paper exceeds the word limit, student need to edit it to fit the required length, trying to delete every sentence that is not necessary to make your point and to defend your thesis. At each point in the paper, you should honestly be able to answer “yes” to the question: is this bit here really necessary?

e. you must use the Chicago reference style, author-date: see here: https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide/citation-guide-2.html;

f. A good paper must have: i. an explicit and clearly stated interpretive or philosophical thesis; ii. an explicit argument that support the thesis; iii. possibly, non-trivial objections to the thesis and/or arguments, showing how these objections might undermine the main thesis.

Tips for writing a successful paper for HPT course:

There are two kinds of papers you might choose from: papers that advance a philosophical thesis, and papers that advance an exegetical thesis.  A philosophical thesis advances a substantive claim on some philosophical question: for example, that democracy is the best form of government, that Locke is wrong to think that there is a right to revolution, that tacit consent does not ground any political obligations, that there is a human right to subsistence, etc. An exegetical thesis, by contrast, advances a claim of interpretation about a particular text, for example, that Hobbes’s theory of the social contract actually commits him to freedom of conscience, that Hobbes is a proto-liberal, that Locke would defend the government’s right to redistribute wealth, that Rousseau is an enemy of participatory democracy, etc.

Of course these two kinds of paper can overlap, but they are in principle distinct. If you choose a substantive philosophical thesis, you can still engage texts in the history of political thought, by using these texts as a source of arguments, theses, etc., with which you may agree or disagree. If you choose an exegetical thesis, you will need to pick a thesis about which there is some plausible controversy. For example, a paper defending the thesis that Hobbes is a social contract theorist is not very interesting at all. (The contrary thesis would of course be very interesting). A good source for exegetical (or interpretive) disagreement is obviously the secondary literature, and of course you are welcome to use it to deepen your understanding of a text. But you should always be sure that your paper remains a paper about the primary text, not the secondary literature. You should never give a secondary piece of literature as a reference to show that Hobbes, Rousseau, etc. believe X. You need to give evidence from the primary text for that. Your reference to the secondary literature only serves as evidence for what such-and-such interpreter of the primary text believes.

I. Know the difference between a thesis, an argument, and the premises of an argument. A thesis is a claim you wish to defend in your essay. An argument is what you say in order to defend the thesis; it provides reasons in support of your thesis. Premises are claims used in your argument. An argument consists in a series of premises. For example, one of the key theses in Plato is that inequality is natural and that the state should assume it as a ground of its policies. An argument he gives for this thesis is the following:

Thesis: Human beings are naturally and politically unequal.

Argument:

1 (premise). Human beings have different talents and abilities, and they can contribute differently to the common good;

2 (premise). Contributions to the common good should be promoted, in order to have a working and flourishing polity;

3 (premise) In order to enhance one’s talents and abilities, specialization can be needed.

Therefore:

4 (conclusion) Differential treatments of differently talented citizens are legitimate and helpful to a working and flourishing polity.

Steps 1 through 4 all together constitute the argument for the conclusion 4. The conclusion 4 is the thesis Plato wishes to defend. 1-3 are premises in the argument for his thesis. An interpretive thesis concerns the interpretation of a given text, or an idea. Its grounds are mainly passages, and explanation of them. Both the passages in the text chosen and other passages in the rest of the works of the author considered can be used.

2. State your thesis clearly at the beginning of your paper. The claim you will defend in your paper should be clear to your reader at outset. You don’t need to say, “I will defend the claim that XYZ”. But you do need to state XYZ clearly. Your thesis is your view, the claim you want to defend. You need to take a position on the question you are addressing and state it clearly. “This paper explores issues related to…” is not a thesis.

3. Provide arguments for your thesis. Once you have decided on your thesis, you must defend it with arguments. How many arguments you provide will depend on how much space you have.

4. Know what it means to critically evaluate an argument. Sometimes your thesis is about other persons’ claims or arguments. For example, your thesis might be that Creon’s arguments for the thesis that an individual has a duty to obey the law are better than Socrates’s arguments for the same. If that’s your thesis, then you need to state it clearly, state Creon’s thesis and his argument(s) for it, state Socrates’s thesis and his argument(s) for it, and then critically evaluate the arguments. To critically evaluate an argument is to (a) determine whether the premises of the argument are true and (b) determine whether the conclusion follows logically from the premises. Consider the following argument for the thesis that Socrates is a man.

1. Socrates is a philosopher.

2. All philosophers are monkeys.

Therefore:

3. Socrates is a man.

This is an invalid argument: the conclusion does not follow logically from the premises. If 1 and 2 were true, then Socrates would be a monkey, not a man. Even if the conclusion 3 is true, this is not a good argument for it. Someone who was critically evaluating the argument could say “The argument is illogical.”

Now consider a different argument for the thesis that Socrates is a man.

1. Socrates is a philosopher.

2. All philosophers are men.

Therefore:

3. Socrates is a man.

This is a logically valid argument. If 1 and 2 are true, then 3 must be true too. But someone critically evaluating this argument could now dispute the truth of its premises. Someone might say, for example, that premise 2 is false, because some philosophers are women. If premise 2 is false, then the argument the conclusion/thesis is not a good one. The thesis may be true, but it has not been adequately defended.

In general, if you want to evaluate an argument for a thesis critically, you must state the thesis, state the argument, and then ask two questions: (a) does the conclusion follow logically from the premises? and (b) are the premises true?

5. Make sure the arguments for your thesis are good, strong arguments. This means that someone who critically evaluates your argument would not find obvious problems with it. (See 4 above).

6. Make sure your thesis is an interesting thesis. Let’s say you read the Apology and came up with the thesis “Socrates is a man.” I am very certain you will be able to provide very good arguments for this thesis, but it is a rather uninteresting thesis. The reason why it is uninteresting is that it is difficult to see what the counterarguments to your thesis would be. If you can’t think of any good, strong counterarguments to your thesis or any objections to your own argument, then it’s not a thesis worth writing a paper about.

7. In your paper, you must seriously consider and respond to (a) counterarguments to your thesis or (b) objections to your argument. This is what makes the difference between an ok paper and a good paper. The stronger the counterarguments or objections that you consider and refute, the stronger your own position. A weak counterargument or objection against your own thesis or argument will leave your reader wondering why you even bothered considering it. If you cannot think of any counterarguments or objections, pick a different thesis.

8. Use your limited space wisely. Any argument for a thesis relies on premises. In political theory (or political philosophy), some premises will be normative and some empirical/descriptive. Now, let’s say there is a claim you want to defend in your essay – in other words, your paper’s thesis. For a political theory paper, you must defend your thesis by providing an argument. If the thesis is an interpretive one, you need to provide textual arguments, i.e. explanations of the relevant passages, and the notions within them. The problem with providing an argument for your thesis is that the premises you use in your argument are themselves claims with which someone may or may not agree. A premise in one argument can always become the thesis of another argument. So, for example, recall Plato’s argument stated above:

1 (premise). Human beings have different talents and abilities, and they can contribute differently to the common good;

2 (premise). Contributions to the common good should be promoted, in order to have a working and flourishing polity;

3 (premise) In order to enhance one’s talents and abilities, specialization can be needed.

Therefore:

4 (conclusion) Differential treatments of differently talented citizens are legitimate and helpful to a working and flourishing polity.

If someone disagreed with premise 1, and provided a good argument for why it is false, Plato would be forced to provide an argument for premise 1. But then the premise of the argument above would become the thesis of another argument.

This means that the potential length of your paper is infinity. Since you have word limits (and a limited lifespan), you need to make choices. For example, you may wish to provide an argument with premises that are relatively uncontroversial. Or if you employ a controversial premise, then you may want to briefly defend the premise too (i.e., provide an argument for it). But at some point you have to stop defending yourself and hope that the premises you use will carry your reader. There is no formula here; you have to exercise your own judgement. This holds also for interpretation of passages, which can rely on very general interpretive premises concerning the thought of the author in general, the general claims in the work to which the passage belongs, and so on.

9. Again, use your limited space wisely. Since you only have limited space to state your thesis, provide your arguments, and consider counterarguments or objections, you can’t waste any words. Don’t say anything that is not necessary to clarify or defend your thesis. Don’t start off your essay, for example, with grandiose pronouncements about how important the question is or how many great thinkers have for centuries and millennia thought about it. Every sentence counts. With each paragraph, and with each sentence in each paragraph, ask yourself: why am I telling my reader this? If you can honestly say “because saying this is necessary for defending my thesis,” leave it in. If not, think again.

10. Use the key concepts in your essay in a clear, precise, and consistent fashion. Key concepts in this course might be (for example) obligation, justice, right, authority, virtue, contract, prudence, etc. When you use a fancy word, make sure its meaning is clear to you and to your reader. For every word you use in your essay, be sure that you can define it. If you can’t, either figure out what it means, or don’t use it. If the meaning of the word is clear to you, but it’s a word used in different ways by different people, then define it for your reader so that it’s clear what you mean by it.

11. Take a look at the marking criteria outlined below.

For further tips, see here: http://www.alisonmcqueen.info/new-page-1. Other tips will be given during Friday classes.

Marking criteria: papers will be marked according to the following criteria:

i. analytical rigour (logic consistency, precision, clarity of argument, consideration of counterarguments, etc.)

ii. creativity;

iii. essay mechanics (structure of essay clear and logical, clear thesis, etc.);

iv. sentence mechanics (quality of prose, grammar, spelling, etc.)

v. miscellaneous (proper citation of sources, meets purposes of assignment, etc.)

Each paper will be returned with a grade corresponding to each of these items, in addition to your overall paper grade. Please note that (with the exception noted in the next paragraph) these itemized grades are purely meant to provide you with feedback, so that you have an idea of what areas require improvement in future work. Your final grade is NOT an average of these itemized grades.

However, an insufficient grade on any one of the six criteria will result in an insufficient grade on the written assignment as a whole. In particular, a minimum level of knowing when and how to provide proper references to works that you have used in crafting your essay (criterion v) is a substantive requirement for all written assignments, without which the maximum grade is an insufficient grade.

Papers that fail to have a clear thesis cannot get a grade higher than 18, and will typically fail. Paper that fail to provide arguments cannot get a grade higher than 24, but will typically do worse. Papers that fail to state and deal with an objection cannot get a grade higher than 26, but will typically do worse.

Explanation of grades: here is a very rough idea of what grades in the 18 to 30 ranges mean. A grade in the 18-23 range indicates some basic problems that require immediate attention. 23-25 suggest some problem that needs attention. 26-7 reflects average work; it is a respectable though perhaps unhappy grade. It indicates a need for improvement. Usually there are no major errors, and there is a good, above-average comprehension of the material – though there may be problems of written expression, or of precision, or the work amounts to a regurgitation of texts or class discussion, etc. 28-29 are very good grades reflecting above-average and promising work. General qualities usually include an excellent comprehension of the material, excellent organization of paper, excellent written expression, no major errors, meeting all basic requirements of assignment, attaining a basic level of analytical rigour, and going beyond a mere summary of texts and class work. Moving into the 30 range requires not just comprehending the material and presenting it well, but a critical engagement with the material that captures its subtleties and displays some spark of creative originality and/or superior analytical rigour. (All of this means that an excellent paper that is also excellent because it was a “safe” paper to write will probably end up with a 28-29, in fact, sometimes, depending on where are you are at with the material, that is exactly the kind of paper you need to write.) 30 is an excellent grade reflecting a paper that is almost flawless in the basic requirements (excellent comprehension of material, organization of paper, written expression, etc.); there is also a critical engagement that captures the complexities and subtleties of the material, and that displays some combination of superior analytical rigour and/or creative original insight. A grade of 30 reflects a top-notch work that is flawless in the basic requirements and that reflects an outstanding comprehension of the material in all its complexities and subtleties and displays a combination of superior analytical rigour and creative original insight. The writer had likely set themselves up with an intellectually challenging project (which of course sometimes carries with it some risk) and was able to pull it off. The very rare 31 is similar; the plus comes from the fact that the reader was saying “wow!” while reading your paper.

Paper submission: the paper should be sent to gpellegrino@luiss.it, the name of the document should be: “HPT (STUDENT’s FAMILY NAME)”, the subject of the email should be: “HPT paper (STUDENT’S FAMILY NAME)”, the paper should be sent no later than 8 days before each exam date – by midnight of the eighth day before each exam date, the day of the exam excluded. Late submissions will be graded in the successive exam date, and they will be penalized of 0.25 for each day (including Saturday and Sunday) of delay.

Failing and rejecting grades: if you fail (i.e., if you have a grade for the paper below 18), you should work on the paper, re-writing it, correcting mistakes and improving its overall quality; if you reject the grade, you should write a new paper, on a different topic (i.e., a different passage or author, or ideas of the same author, or philosophical thesis).

 

5. Reading list and information on other materials

 

·      Plato, The Republic

·      Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics

·      Aristotle, Politics

·      Aquinas, St. Thomas Aquinas Political Writings, ed. by R.W. Dyson, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2002

·      –, On Law, Morality, and Politics, ed. by W.P. Baumgarth and R.W. Regan, Indianapolis, Hackett, 2002

·      T. Hobbes, The Leviathan

·      J. Locke, Second Treatise of Government

·      D. Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature

·      J. Bentham, A Fragment on Government

·      –, Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation

·      J.J. Rousseau, On Social Contract

·      J.S. Mill, On Liberty

·      –, Utilitarianism

·      H. Sidgwick, The Methods of Ethics

A selection of texts may be found here: S.M. Cahn (ed.), Political Philosophy. The Essential Texts (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2005).

Many of those texts can be found also online; see for instance here: https://www.libertyfund.org/resources/online-library-of-liberty/ Any edition or version is accepted.

The general overview of the ideas of the authors dealt with in Wednesday class will be based on A. Ryan, On Politics. A History of Political Thought from Herodotus to the Present (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 2013=.

Any other information and material will be available on the Luiss Learn course page.

 

6. Class schedule

 

Week 1 Intro and Plato

Week 2 Plato and Aristotle

Week 3 Aristotle and Aquinas

Week 4 Aquinas and Natural Law Theories

Week 5 Hobbes

Week 6 Hobbes and Locke

Week 7 Locke

Week 8 Hume

Week 9 Rousseau

Week 10 Theological Utilitarianism

Week 11 Bentham

Week 12 Mill

Week 13 Sidgwick