Examiners commentaries 2014

Examiners commentaries 2014 Examiners commentaries 2014 PS1130 Introduction to modern political thought Important note This commentary reflects the examination and assessment arrangements for this course in the academic year 2013 14. The format and structure of the examination may change in future years, and any such changes will be publicised on the virtual learning environment (VLE). Information about the subject guide and the Essential reading references Unless otherwise stated, all cross-references will be to the latest version of the subject guide (2011). You should always attempt to use the most recent edition of any Essential reading textbook, even if the commentary and/or online reading list and/or subject guide refers to an earlier edition. If different editions of Essential reading are listed, please check the VLE for reading supplements if none are available, please use the contents list and index of the new edition to find the relevant section. General remarks Learning outcomes At the end of this course, and having completed the Essential reading and activities, you should be able to: demonstrate a familiarity with the main ideas of the thinkers discussed in the subject guide provide an account of the main concepts used by thinkers covered on the course evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments employed in the theories studied formulate your own interpretations of the thinkers covered, using the model examination/essay questions. Format of the examination This examination is three hours long and you must answer four questions from a choice of 12. The examination paper provides two questions for each thinker discussed in the subject guide. You may answer two questions on a single thinker. However, you must also note that the two questions are distinct and require different information and judgements. They should not be treated as two parts of a more general descriptive question. Candidates have suffered in the past for failing to treat each question as free standing, as opposed to parts A and B of a common generic question. The Examiners expect carefully structured essay-style answers. All the questions invite you to demonstrate your knowledge of the relevant literature and to engage critically with that literature. The questions require you to construct a critical answer and not simply to repeat and summarise the material in the subject guide. 1

PS1130 Introduction to modern political thought Select your material carefully The syllabus is about modern political theory from Hobbes to Hegel and Marx. As such there is an important dimension of history in the interpretation of these thinkers. You will, therefore, be assessed on your judgements about which aspects of their arguments are necessary for your own answer. A demanding feature of a course such as this is that it requires you to engage critically with the materials in the subject guide and the wider literature. If you have mastered a topic chapter in the subject guide and the relevant additional reading, you will be familiar with selecting issues that are central and those that are peripheral to the questions asked. You should make these distinctions clear in the introductory paragraph to your essay. Once you have made such distinctions you will have given the Examiners a clear signal about your understanding of the argument and how you propose to contribute to it. That will also allow you to devote more time to your main argument. The Examiners understand that being required to make this kind of judgement can be a daunting prospect. That said, you should remember that there is no simple right answer and that we are judging your ability to engage in a scholarly debate. For that reason, the Examiners do not have to agree with the argument you make to judge it a good argument. The key point is how you define the issue in the question and how you marshal your evidence for the conclusions that you draw. Carefully structure your argument In light of the above, it is very important that you give a clear account of what the question is and how your answer relates to it. Many candidates either leave the answer until the closing paragraph or else assume that the answer will emerge from a detailed description of the relevant literature. A wealth of detail will only impress the Examiners when it is clearly organised and directed towards a stated conclusion. Think of your answers as a structured argument rather than an unstructured conversation. To this end, Examiners are looking for: interpretation of the question and the presentation of the argument in the introductory paragraph the development and substantiation of the argument in the main body of the answer (it is not necessary to provide subheadings for your main answer if you have adequately set out the structure in the introduction) a sound conclusion. This acts as a summary of the main points of the argument and demonstrates that you have completed the argument and not merely run out of time. Always manage your time to give yourself five minutes to conclude your answer. Candidates who properly conclude their arguments almost always do better than those who just stop because they have run out of time. 2 Read widely You are expected to read beyond the Essential reading for each chapter as listed in the subject guide and also beyond the recommended readings. The selected chapter from the companion textbook listed in the Further reading will provide a list of additional secondary texts and an account of the relevant debates these raise. The Further reading is the full text of the thinkers discussed in the subject guide and is listed on p.4 of the subject guide. Although the selections listed in the subject guide will be sufficient, you should try to familiarise yourself with full texts where possible. These texts are valuable in themselves as part of an advanced education and they offer important insights into the understanding of politics. The

Examiners commentaries 2014 Essential reading is intended to provide the material on which the chapter commentary of the subject guide is based and the Further reading found at the beginning of each chapter supplements this and helps develop a deeper understanding of the material discussed. The main texts are long, complex and often written as engagements with a wide range of political and philosophical debates. The subject guide provides an overview of the main aspects of the argument, but there is no substitute for a deeper immersion in the texts themselves. Approach the examination as a test of your understanding The subject guide provides an introduction to the topic and a suggestion of Further reading. Just as you would be ill-advised to attempt an examination solely on the basis of lecture handouts, so should you not regard the subject guide as sufficient prepartion for the examination or to a particular answer. The chapters in the subject guide are not model answers to examination questions. You should be wary of relying solely on the overview chapters and on the structure of those chapters as a model for an examination answer. Modern political theory involves a series of arguments and discussions about issues around the nature and scope of state power and individuals rights, claims and obligations. Familiarity with the subject guide will show that there are a number of conflicting positions that can be held on all of these debates. It is important that you see the task of making progress in this subject in terms of critical and analytical engagement with the arguments and theories. Do not be afraid to take positions you will not be marked down because the Examiners disagree with you. But remember, what is most important is your ability not only to criticise the arguments you disagree with, but also your willingness to give the thinkers discussed the benefit of the doubt. Successful critical engagement with a philosophical text involves trying to make the best possible case for the position that you wish to criticise. There is little merit in demonstrating the weakness of a crude and simplistic caricature. These arguments have attracted the attention of great minds across the centuries. Remember that you are being assessed on your ability to interpret as well as criticise, and that involves making reasoned judgements. Key steps to improvement You need to read beyond the subject guide as this will provide you with the additional materials necessary for a considered and comprehensive answer to the question posed. There is no simple rule about how much additional reading is necessary. All questions will focus on specific thinkers but they also involve reflection on broader issues and debates. What is relevant in each case will differ. You need to provide an explicit argument relating to the questions asked. Remember that the examination paper comprises questions and not simply invitations to write all that you can remember. Do not provide simple biographies of the thinkers being discussed. There will be occasions when biography is relevant, but you will need to show why this is so. You are being assessed on your ability to interpret and answer a question. This is something you should have practised while working through the subject guide. There are a number of ways of answering the questions and no single right answer in relation to the debates covered in the subject guide. The quality of your answer and your examination performance will therefore depend upon a critical and analytical approach to the literature and theories covered in the subject guide and Further reading. 3

PS1130 Introduction to modern political thought Question spotting Many candidates are disappointed to find that their examination performance is poorer than they expected. This can be due to a number of different reasons and the Examiners commentaries suggest ways of addressing common problems and improving your performance. We want to draw your attention to one particular failing question spotting, that is, confining your examination preparation to a few question topics which have come up in past papers for the course. This can have very serious consequences. We recognise that candidates may not cover all topics in the syllabus in the same depth, but you need to be aware that Examiners are free to set questions on any aspect of the syllabus. This means that you need to study enough of the syllabus to enable you to answer the required number of examination questions. The syllabus can be found in the Course information sheet in the section of the VLE dedicated to this course. You should read the syllabus very carefully and ensure that you cover sufficient material in preparation for the examination. Examiners will vary the topics and questions from year to year and may well set questions that have not appeared in past papers every topic on the syllabus is a legitimate examination target. So although past papers can be helpful in revision, you cannot assume that topics or specific questions that have come up in past examinations will occur again. If you rely on a question spotting strategy, it is likely you will find yourself in difficulties when you sit the examination paper. We strongly advise you not to adopt this strategy. 4

Examiners commentaries 2014 Examiners commentaries 2014 PS1130 Introduction to modern political thought Zone A Important note This commentary reflects the examination and assessment arrangements for this course in the academic year 2013 14. The format and structure of the examination may change in future years, and any such changes will be publicised on the virtual learning environment (VLE). Information about the subject guide and the Essential reading references Unless otherwise stated, all cross-references will be to the latest version of the subject guide (2011). You should always attempt to use the most recent edition of any Essential reading textbook, even if the commentary and/or online reading list and/or subject guide refers to an earlier edition. If different editions of Essential reading are listed, please check the VLE for reading supplements if none are available, please use the contents list and index of the new edition to find the relevant section. Comments on specific questions Candidates should answer FOUR of the following TWELVE questions. All questions carry equal marks. Question 1 Explain and assess Hobbes s distinction between sovereignty by institution and sovereignty by acquisition. The first question refers to the reading from Hobbes in: Cahn, Steven M. Political Philosophy: The Essential Texts. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010) second edition [ISBN 9780195396614] and pp.17 26 of the subject guide, especially pp.18 19 and 23 25. You will also find Chapter 10 of: Boucher, D. and Paul Kelly (eds) Political Thinkers: From Socrates to the Present. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009) second edition [ISBN 9780199215522] useful. The latter work includes a bibliography for Further additional reading to supplement your understanding of the issues. You are reminded that this course seeks detailed knowledge of a particular thinker s argument or aspect of it, as opposed to breadth of reading. The question addresses the problem of sovereignty. You should be able to explain what Hobbes meant by sovereignty and why it must be absolute. You should be able distinguish the question of obligation to the sovereign from the question of the origin of sovereignty in an alienation contract, where individuals irrevocably transfer their subjective right or natural 5

PS1130 Introduction to modern political thought liberty in order to receive back from the sovereign peace and security that only his power can provide. Note that this question addresses the nature of sovereignty. That fact should give you a clue to steer away from the account of choice in the state of nature. In order to provide security the sovereign must give law and thus must be beyond the challenge of those subject to it or by any other power involved in its distribution. Absolutism precludes an appeal to a higher moral or political power so it is above the rival claim of religious authority. Hobbes account of sovereignty extends this power of absolute judgment to all things, so that the sovereign can even determine the laws of arithmetic. The sovereign however is expected to exercise his judgement and discretion in order to determine the conditions for civil peace. You should be able to explain why the idea of law needs the concept of absolute sovereignty to provide coherence and determinacy of content so that there can be no disagreement about what the law is. Furthermore, the concept of sovereignty explains the normative force of law by introducing the idea of certain punishment. This is one of the things that made natural law incomplete in the state of nature. You should be able to explain the nature of sovereign power and show that Hobbes is making a logical point as well as a practical one. Absolutism is compatible with settled law and the non-arbitrary rule. You might also discuss Hobbes account of tyranny as a way of defending absolutism from a mischaracterisation. The best answers will identify the potential tension between Hobbes theory of absolute sovereignty and the dominant motive people have to leave the state of nature, which is the desire to avoid a violent death. The best answers might also show a familiarity with the arguments of Jean Hampton (1986) on this issue and first class answers should be able to assess the validity of her critique. Hampton s view is discussed and challenged in Chapter 10 of Boucher and Kelly (2009). Question 2 Why does Hobbes consider the state of nature to be a state of war? The question refers to the reading from Hobbes in Cahn (2010) and pp.19 23 of the subject guide. You will also find Chapter 10 of Boucher and Kelly (2009) useful. The latter work includes a bibliography for Further additional reading to supplement your understanding of the issues concerned. However, you are reminded that this course seeks detailed knowledge of a particular thinker s argument as opposed to breadth of reading. You should be careful not to refer to additional titles of Further reading unless this is illustrative of your main argument. The question directs you to the character of the state of nature. The point of the question is to address the features of a world without political sovereignty and why we would create such a power. You should begin by providing an account of the state of nature and an explanation of the role of the device in his wider argument. This explanation should be in two parts: an account of the circumstances of the state of nature and an account of man s nature. The circumstances of the state of nature include the absence of law and morality as well as material scarcity and the existence of other non-cooperative human agents. Hobbes account of human nature is also important in explaining how conflict arises and why the state of nature is a state of war. You should be able to 6

Examiners commentaries 2014 explain the importance of egoism, diffidence, glory-seeking, partiality and natural equality of power. Using the circumstances of pre-political society and an account of human nature, you should provide an account of why Hobbes thinks we need to agree to create a sovereign who can translate unlimited liberty into secure rights, obligations and duties. This will describe the social contract and explain who the parties to the contract are individual members of the state of nature and not individuals and the sovereign. You should also give a brief account of Hobbes conception of the Law of Nature, particularly the three laws covering self-preservation, seeking peace and keeping promises. Does this conflict with the idea that there is no moral law in the state of nature? You should acknowledge the significance of the question and offer a reasoned opinion. The problem addressed in the question concerns the implication of Hobbes account of natural law and the circumstances of war. If there is a person so strong that all men can trust him to secure peace, then the circumstances of the state of nature would not have arisen. Equality of threat is a condition of fear. However, if Hobbes belief about natural equality does hold and there is no such powerful individual, then we are faced with the problem of why any one person would give up their liberty without being sure others will do so too. Similarly, if there is a duty to seek peace irrespective of what others do then the state of nature holds, but if there is no duty only a reason, then why should this reason oblige? This is the problem of the first mover. All have a reason to act, but only on condition that others do likewise. How can any individual know that if he gives up his liberty he will not be disadvantaged relative to everyone else? The place of fear in the state of nature suggests that any individual would fear giving up his natural right to self-protection unless he was certain that others would do likewise and this is precisely what the state of nature seems to rule out. The question turns on whether the whole argument is rendered irrelevant if conquest can justify political right. This would seem to deny the idea of natural equality in the state of nature. With respect to conquest, you should be able to explain Hobbes account of freedom and whether the fact of a threat of harm undermines a free transfer of liberty. Commentators differ on the success of Hobbes argument in demonstrating the compatibility between conquest and contract. You are expected to weigh up the alternatives and give a reasoned choice. The best answers will consider whether Hobbes is providing a prudential reason to submit to sovereign power or whether he is showing the necessary conditions of civil peace and the state, in which case there may not be a material contradiction. Question 3 Explain and assess Locke s account of the nature and acquisition of private property. The third question refers to the reading from Locke in Cahn (2010) and pp.27 34 of the subject guide, especially pp.28 31. You will also find Chapter 12 of Boucher and Kelly (2009) especially useful. The latter work includes a select bibliography for additional reading to supplement your understanding of the issues concerned. The same proviso as for previous questions applies here. You are reminded that this course seeks detailed knowledge of a particular thinker s argument or aspect of it, as opposed to breadth of reading. 7

PS1130 Introduction to modern political thought 8 This question addresses Locke s account of property prior to the state. For those who read the full text of Locke s Second Treatise, listed in the Further reading section of the subject guide, the whole of Chapter 5 is devoted to the problem of property acquisition. This is the basis of Locke s account of limited government, constitutionalism and the rule of law. You should be able to provide an account of Locke s theory of property as comprising both property in the person and property in things. Property in the person and in the activity of labouring supports his account of personal rights such as life and liberty as well as his account of how we acquire things from the common stock of nature. The core of the question asks you to explain the two basic arguments for initial acquisition in the state of nature: the labour value and the labour-mixing arguments. The limitations on the acquisition of property in the state of nature will also be relevant, as will the introduction of money. The most important issue that you will then discuss is how the limited sociability of the state of nature creates inconveniences of partiality as each person is their own judge, jury and executioner with respect to defending their property claims. This can be contrasted with Hobbes state of nature although you might be wary of spending too much time on comparisons. Similarly, although Locke s account of the labour theory can be analysed using the idea of Marx (who has a labour theory of value) some candidates in 2014 spent rather too much time on Marx s critique and not enough on Locke s argument. The more perceptive candidates will see the importance of property in the account of territorial jurisdiction. Given Locke s clear emphasis on the conventional nature of money and its transformation of the account of ownership, one might ask why he places so much emphasis on acquiring property in land. Given the pre-political nature of this process you may consider how important the account of the acquisition of land is for the first stage of his contract theory of the state. The agreement to pool land is a condition of a territorially continuous state which is the basis for the limits of his account of political jurisdiction. First class answers will link this point to Locke s rejection of the idea of secession and his account and defence of colonial acquisition Question 4 Does the introduction of tacit consent undermine Locke s consent based account of political obligation? The fourth question also refers to the reading from Locke (Cahn, 2010) and pp.27 33 of the subject guide. You will also find Chapter 12 of Boucher and Kelly (2009) useful. The latter work includes a bibliography for Further additional reading to supplement your understanding of the issues concerned. The same proviso as for previous questions applies here. You are reminded that this course seeks detailed knowledge of a particular thinker s argument or aspect of it, as opposed to breadth of reading. This question addresses Locke s account of political obligation and how he attempts to reconcile the claims of freedom and obligation using the concept of consent. As we have natural rights to life, liberty and property, the only source of obligations can be the law that distributes those rights. You should be able to explain the basis of natural rights in Locke s argument, but you should be careful not to repeat the full account of property in the person which was the point of the previous question.

Examiners commentaries 2014 You should then be able to show how Locke conceives of the state as an association that we freely establish to protect and administer our rights. You should refer to the social character of the state of nature but also to the inconveniences that arise from the absence of an impartial judge. Locke uses a number of levels of agreement to explain the emergence of the state. As this theory removes the idea of an original contract from all but the first generation there must be a way for subsequent future generations to agree to and authorise political sovereignty. For this reason Locke turns from contract to consent theory. You should be able to distinguish the role and character of express and tacit consent, and illustrate this distinction with examples. Good answers will also assess the plausibility of the idea of tacit consent and whether it counts as a theory of consent at all. Finally, good answers will connect the discussion of tacit consent with the idea of a right to resistance and the circumstances in which consent might be judged. Does the idea of tacit consent undermine Locke s commitment to consent as a basis for political obligation? How can one refuse tacit consent if it can be manifest through non-intentional actions? Question 5 Does Mill s utilitarianism undermine his commitment to liberty? The fifth question refers to the reading from J.S. Mill (Cahn, 2010) and pp.35 42 of the subject guide. You will also find Chapter 21 of Boucher and Kelly (2009) useful. The latter work includes a bibliography for Further additional reading to supplement your understanding of the issues concerned. The same proviso as for previous questions applies here. You are reminded that this course seeks detailed knowledge of a particular thinker s argument or aspects of it, as opposed to breadth of reading. This question focuses on the tension between the demands of the principle of utility and the liberty principle. Mill claims that his principle of liberty is derived from considerations of utility alone. You need to explain Mill s utilitarian theory and the simple idea that the criterion of right action is the greatest happiness of the greatest number. They might give an overview of the main arguments in the essay Utilitarianism which is listed in the Further reading of the Introduction to the subject guide. Alongside this Mill also defends a liberty principle as the sole criterion for interfering with the actions of others. The question asks you to consider whether this means that Mill thought it could never be in the interest of the greatest number to curtail liberty. You will need to demonstrate a clear understanding of the priority of the liberty principle in Mill s thought and how this is compatible with the priority of the utility principle. In explaining the liberty principle you will need to explain the harm principle and the distinction between the idea of self- and other-regarding actions. Good answers will also relate Mill s defence of liberty to his account of justice and rights in Chapter V of On Liberty. Using this material you will then need to consider a number of solutions to the problem of compatibility. First, Mill is just inconsistent. Second, Mill thought that the liberty principle would, as a matter of fact, always be to the interest of the greatest happiness of the greatest number. In this case you might wish to consider some examples where small restrictions of liberty bring about considerable benefits, such as health and safety or danger warnings on products and paternalist legislation such as 9

PS1130 Introduction to modern political thought 10 compulsory education or the wearing of seatbelts. Third, Mill distinguishes between types of principle. One might see the utility principle as an axiological principle that is, one which explains why something is valuable whereas the liberty principle is a practical principle prescribing what one should do. The former does not create obligations, whereas the latter does. The best answers will also refer to commentators such as John Gray, Jonathan Riley and Roger Crisp to explain and justify the position taken in respect of the above options discussed in Boucher and Kelly (2009) Chapter 21. You should note that there is a case to be made for each option there is no single right answer and it is the case made that is assessed and not the choice between options. Question 6 Critically assess Mill s harm principle. The sixth question also refers to the reading from J.S. Mill (Cahn 2010) and pp.35 42 of the subject guide. You will also find Chapter 21 of Boucher and Kelly (2009) useful. The latter work includes a bibliography for Further additional reading to supplement your understanding of the issue concerned. The same proviso as for previous questions applies here. You are reminded that this course seeks detailed knowledge of a particular thinker s argument or aspect of it, as opposed to breadth of reading. This question focuses directly in the essay On Liberty and Mill s explanation and defence of the liberty principle. You should provide a description and defence of the one very simple principle. This is the view that the only legitimate reason for restricting the actions of another by public power is to prevent harm. Two things need to be noted here. First, the extent and character of public power. Mill is not simply concerned with the restriction of the power of the state or government, but also with the coercive power of majority opinion or society. Why is majoritarianism seen as a special problem? Can it be resolved by the simple extension of civil and political rights under a constitution? If not, why not? Further, you might also consider the connection between majority opinion and the greatest happiness of the greatest number as found in Mill s utilitarianism. The second thing to note is the extent of the concept of harm. This takes us to the heart of the question. The requirement to do no harm can be seen as unduly onerous. All laws would appear to harm the interests of some (criminals) and all free actions might cause harm in some way: I can harm myself by leading a dissolute or unhealthy life or by not studying hard enough. Does this mean that the state and public opinion can intervene to prevent me harming myself? Mill seeks to resolve that problem by distinguishing between self- and other-regarding harms. He claims that an action that might harm oneself is not of public concern. If I choose not to study hard enough or to drink too much, that is my concern alone. The question then asks whether this distinction can be sustained. Mill gives examples where a public role or responsibility transforms a private vice into a public harm. A train driver who drinks too much in his own time commits only a private failure, but if he is drunk on duty that is a public concern. One question to consider is how we make these public and private distinctions. Do I harm my parents if I fail to be a dutiful son? You might consider possible examples of a selfregarding and an other-regarding action. Secondly, given the consequences

Examiners commentaries 2014 of action and the social context in which it takes place, can any action be purely self-regarding? You might try and think of examples. Remember that some forms of acceptable private behaviour in modern liberal societies would have been criminalised in Mill s time. A further distinction to draw is that between harm and offence. Again, consider examples that might illustrate this distinction. Mill suggests that offence is avoidable whereas harm is not. This gives a very physical account of harm, such as assaults. But what about harms to interests that are not physical? Would Mill s theory be able to make sense of groups slanders or hate speech? The use of examples to illustrate and test Mill s theory is central to a successful answer to this question. That said, remember to relate the discussion of issues to the categories and distinctions that Mill uses in his essay. Question 7 Why does Rousseau criticize the idea of the state of nature? The seventh question refers to the reading from J-J. Rousseau in Cahn (2010) and pp.45 52 of the subject guide, especially pp.47 50. You will also find Chapter 15 of Boucher and Kelly (2009) useful. The latter work includes a bibliography for Further additional reading to supplement your understanding of the issues concerned. The same proviso as for previous questions applies here. You are reminded that this course seeks detailed knowledge of a particular thinker s argument or aspects of it, as opposed to breadth of reading. This question focuses attention on Rousseau s critique of previous state of nature theories as a basis for accounts of political obligation and sovereignty. In particular it stresses our natural condition as one of equality, and blames civil society for being the source of inequality and status. The question also refers to the connection between two of Rousseau s works, Discourse on the Origins of Inequality and The Social Contract. The question focuses on the state of nature and thus raises the problem of the two contract theories that Rousseau defends. The question is therefore asking you to disentangle Rousseau s critique of contract theory from his endorsement of it. You should begin by providing an account of Rousseau s conception of natural man in Discourse, and how he lacks fear of death and is not in a condition of scarcity. This might be contrasted with features of the arguments of Hobbes and Locke. Given this primitive state of natural innocence, you should also be able to account for the emergence of civil society and divisions of rank following the discovery of technology in particular metallurgy and agriculture. This discovery should be used to explain the emergence of both society and relationships of rank and inequality. This in turn should be used to explain how the subjection of the many to the few is based on the consent and agreement of the many. This is the so-called evil contract. Again, Rousseau is offering the contract as a source of oppression and domination which appears to endorse his rejection of social contract theory. The best answers will distinguish the emergence of amour propre or egoistic love of self and status within society and contrast this with amour de soi or simple self-concern in the natural condition. You should also be able to assess the extent to which Rousseau is using the idea of a natural condition to explain the origin of civil and political society and how far he is merely criticising rival contract theories for their reliance on natural inequality. On 11

PS1130 Introduction to modern political thought this final point, you might consider whether the idea of the social contract in the book of that name is radically different from the original contract of Rousseau s forebears. Is Rousseau really a contract theorist at all? Question 8 Whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be constrained to do so by the whole body, which means nothing other than he shall be forced to be free. Discuss. The eighth question also refers to the reading from J-J. Rousseau in Cahn (2010) and pp.45 52 of the subject guide, especially pp.49 52. You will also find Chapter 15 of Boucher and Kelly (2009) useful. The latter work includes a bibliography for Further additional reading to supplement your understanding of the issue concerned. The same proviso as for previous questions applies here. You are reminded that this course seeks detailed knowledge of a particular thinker s argument or aspect of it, as opposed to breadth of reading. This question focuses primarily on Rousseau s concept of the general will and his account of freedom. You should begin with an account of freedom at the heart of Rousseau s work. The full text of The Social Contract is listed amongst the Further readings on p.4 of the subject guide. Good answers will identify Rousseau s discussion of freedom or liberty within the problem of reconciling freedom as self-rule with political rule. If one sees freedom as the absence of interference and constraints, then political rule and political society will always undermine freedom. Every law will be a restriction of freedom. Hence Rousseau s claim at the opening of The Social Contract, that while man is born free (as claimed by all previous contract theorist such as Hobbes and Locke) he is everywhere in chains or not free. Having explained the problem as reconciling personal liberty and political rule you should turn to his account of the general will. The general will extends the idea of agreement into the very process of legislating and is a way of conceiving of political society through the notion of the general will in which each person submits himself to rule by all other. As all do likewise, for Rousseau, this cancels the idea of subjection, hence all are free. You should be able to distinguish the general will from particular wills and the will of all. The general will is the real will of those who are subject to it because it has its origins in their continual act of authorisation. You should connect the discussion of the general will to the source of legislation and thus explain how law, for Rousseau, constitutes freedom rather than restricts it. You should thus be able to explain and analyse the so-called paradox of being forced to be free, namely how the law emanating from the general will is the real will of the citizens to whom it applies so that their real freedom is actually violated when they do not act in accordance with the general will. You should be able to assess the question of whether this is a totalitarian doctrine or merely an account of political obligation. Good answers will also explore the conditions for maintaining a social contract, such as the need for a civic religion and the role of the legislator and use these to assess the conditions of freedom and the potentiality for Rousseau s argument to support totalitarianism. You might use Isaiah Berlin s distinction between positive and negative conceptions of liberty and use a discussion of that distinction to provide 12

Examiners commentaries 2014 an appraisal of the strengths and weaknesses of Rousseau s argument (discussed in Boucher and Kelly, 2009). Question 9 Critically assess the role of the individual in Hegel s political philosophy. The ninth question refers to the reading from Hegel in Cahn (2010) and pp.53 65 of the subject guide, especially pp.55 59. You will also find Chapter 24 of Boucher and Kelly (2009) useful. The latter work includes a bibliography for Further additional reading to supplement your understanding of the issue concerned. The same proviso as for previous questions applies here. You are reminded that this course seeks detailed knowledge of a particular thinker s argument or aspects of it, as opposed to breadth of reading. This question is about Hegel s theory of the state and the individual s relationship to it. It thus covers some familiar issues such as the basis of rights, duties and obligations and, in particular, the issue of political obligation. Part of the answer to this question involves an account of the origin and nature of rights and obligations, and the contrasting of Hegel s theory with the social contract arguments of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. The central concern of the answer is the account of Hegel s communitarian understanding of ethics and politics. This is covered on pp.56 57 of the subject guide. You should be able to describe and explain Hegel s communitarian position. This involves the denial of the idea of freedom and equality as the natural condition of man and the defence of political identity and personality as social construction. By arguing that identity is socially constructed, Hegel claims that accounts of human nature and accounts of rights and obligations have to be found within identityconferring communities. You should then explain the way in which these communitarian dimensions of identity are developed through Hegel s historical dialectic using the three main sources of modern identity, namely the family, civil society and, ultimately, the state. You should describe the conceptions of identity that derive from these two incomplete forms of ethical community. Tribal and commercial societies are historical examples of these aspects of the dialectical movement of history, yet Hegel regards these as incomplete accounts of modern political identity. The contradictions of these two incomplete forms of ethical community are only brought to completion in the idea of the modern state. Does this theory undermine the importance of the individual? Perceptive candidates will see that Hegel s theory raises some of the problems raised by Rousseau s concept of general will. Does Hegel offer a better response to those concerns with his communitarian account of the state and its evolution? You should thus be able to explain the idea of the modern state as the actualisation of the ethical idea in terms of its completion and resolution of the contradictions of the two preceding forms, whereby the individual is a historical achievement and not a natural status. Furthermore, they should be able to explain that because the idea of the state is a condition of our identity the problem of radical separation from the state, such as that posited by state of nature arguments, is misguided. In effect, Hegel argues that the problem does not really exist. You might consider how plausible Hegel s claim is. 13

PS1130 Introduction to modern political thought Question 10 What significance does Hegel attach to war in his philosophy of history? The tenth question also refers to the reading from Hegel in Cahn (2010) and pp.53 65 of the subject guide, especially pp.55 59. You will also find Chapter 24 of Boucher and Kelly (2009) useful. The latter work includes a bibliography for Further additional reading to supplement your understanding of the issue concerned. The same proviso as for previous questions applies here. You are reminded that this course seeks detailed knowledge of a particular thinker s argument or aspect of it, as opposed to breadth of reading. The discussion of war arises from Hegel s account of the struggle for identity within his communitarian theory of the person. This question asks you to explain the origins of identity in the struggle for individuation from the social context. You should emphasise that the communitarian account of the person is not intended as a static description but rather as an active account of a process. Individuation is a process that continues through different historical phases culminating in the state. You will need to cover some of the ground of the previous question but be careful to not simply repeat the same material. Just as Hegel uses the struggle for identity in his communitarian theory to explain the emergence of personal identity, so he extends the argument to explain the individuation of particular political communities as states. In other words, states also emerge from this struggle for recognition and that is the basis of his account of the rational function of war in history. Note that if you have attempted the previous question, you should avoid too much repetition of the discussion of communitarianism. You should also note that Hegel s theory of history as a rational process confers the idea of rationality on each dimension of that process, hence his claim that the real is the rational. In this way, war is part of that rational process through which particular states emerge and assert their independence from one another. You should also explain two further features of Hegel s account of war. In the first he uses the idea of war and the subsequent rise of patriotism to reinforce the coherence and identity of the state by sustaining strong bonds of common purpose and struggle, which are weakened by trade and too much comfort. Secondly, as the role of war is the condition for the establishment of states and for sustaining them against rivals, it appears that Hegel suggests that war is a necessary and ineradicable feature of the logic of the modern state system. As a conclusion and assessment of this account of war, you might assess whether Hegel thought that war was a necessary feature of the state system or whether it was merely a necessary stage in the emergence of the system thus far, but may not be so important in the future. This sub-question connects with the issue of whether the state system is the end or the goal of political history, or merely one further stage in a still unfolding process. If you take the view that the rationality of war might be contingent and therefore overcome by later developments, then they might suggest other ways in which states can sustain patriotic ties and discuss whether these might achieve the effects that Hegel thinks are necessary. 14

Examiners commentaries 2014 Question 11 For Marx all politics is class politics. Discuss. The eleventh question refers to the reading from Marx (Cahn, 2010) and pp.72 74 of the subject guide. You will also find Chapter 26 of Boucher and Kelly (2009) useful. The latter work includes a bibliography for Further additional reading to supplement your understanding of the issue concerned. The same proviso as for previous questions applies here. You are reminded that this course seeks detailed knowledge of a particular thinker s argument or aspect of it, as opposed to breadth of reading. This question addresses the role of class in Marx s theory and whether Marx can be described as a political theorist. Most importantly, the question is addressing the nature of class conflict and its role in politics. You should be able to explain the role of class and its origins in the relations of production. To this extent an account of Marx s materialism is necessary. The question then turns to the role of class conflict and class identity. You should be able to distinguish Marx s account from utopian and revisionist socialism, which are both concerned with the moral condemnation of capitalism and the attempt to pursue questions of social justice and political reform independently of class relations. Why does Marx have a two class explanation of capitalism? Perceptive candidates will link this to his dialectical materialism (or theory of history). You should be able to identify the emergence of political interests from the context of class identity and the relations within classes. You should explain and describe those relations and distinguish them from other phenomena such as class culture and the celebration of class solidarity. This should then be linked to Marx s account of revolutionary political change and the reason why that change must ultimately be revolutionary. By way of critical analysis, the best answers might consider whether Marx s position is too narrowly reductionist and whether he misses the significance of other factors such as nationality, race and gender. Question 12 Why does Marx describe himself as a communist? The twelfth question also refers to the reading from Marx in Cahn (2010) and pp.67 76 of the subject guide, especially pp.72 74. You will also find Chapter 26 of Boucher and Kelly (2009) useful. The latter work includes a bibliography for Further additional reading to supplement your understanding of the issue concerned. The same proviso as for previous questions applies here. You are reminded that this course seeks detailed knowledge of a particular thinker s argument or aspect of it, as opposed to breadth of reading. This question asks you to explain the significance of the term communism in Marx. You must beware of making facile historical generalisations such as the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 disproved Marxism. You should explain what communism is and why it overcomes the problem of alienation. Communism is the absence of money and this is necessary to overcome the commodification of labour, or the way in which man s labour power is turned into something that can be bought and sold as a material 15

PS1130 Introduction to modern political thought object. This form of objectification is part of the way in which man is alienated or distanced from his species being. Communism is therefore a necessary condition of human freedom and emancipation. You should also consider the status of Marx s indictment: does this involve an ethical critique of capitalism? Does Marx condemn capitalism for being alienating or is he merely claiming that alienation is a necessary feature of the system, but one that leads to internal crisis and contradiction? A similar analysis and critique should be offered of the concept of exploitation and how that can only be overcome by the social control of the means of production. You need to identify and analyse Marx s conception of exploitation. Is exploitation the deprivation of labour power from labourers by capitalists? Or is it the expropriation of part of the product of labouring the monetary value of the labouring by the capitalist? Again, you should examine the extent to which Marx s arguments see the capitalist as stealing what he does not own and therefore acting unjustly and how this problem relates to the issue of commodification that is at the heart of the wage-labour system. Finally, the best answers will also say something about the problems of social organisation that the eradication of wage-labour and money requires. Marx has little to say about these issues, especially given the extent to which he critiques the utopianism and reformism of rival socialist theoreticians in The Communist manifesto. However, his claim that distribution should be from each according to ability, to each according to need provides some guidance of Marx s views. A critical assessment of how communism overcomes the need for politics is a good way of concluding this topic. 16