1

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; Wednesday 9.00-10.00. 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.

2

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 will be assessed through a two-hour exam at the end of the semester. The exam paper is in three sections, all of which must be answered (further details will be provided during the lectures, including advice on how to prepare for the exam). 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. 320.011 MOR Timetable: Monday, 11am – 12pm, AM250 Thursday, 3pm – 4pm, AM250

Dr. Allyn Fives

Dr. Kevin Ryan

Week 1

Introduction Week 7

Problematizing Democracy Philosophy & Public Affairs Problematizing Democracy

Week 2

Liberty & Equality Week 8

Deliberative Democracy Liberty & Equality Deliberative Democracy

Week 3

Liberty & Equality Week 9

Agonistic Democracy Utility & Liberty Agonistic Democracy

Week 4

Utility & Liberty Week 10

Bank Holiday Reasonableness & Virtue Agonistic Pluralism

Week 5

Reasonableness & Virtue Week 11

Agonistic Pluralism Legitimacy & Justice Embodying Politics

Week 6

Legitimacy & Justice Week 12

Embodying Politics Course Review Course Review

3

Topics and Reading List Week 1: 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. [Blackboard] Week 2 – 3: 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

4

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

[Chapter 1 on 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: 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]

5

John Rawls (1989). The Domain of the Political and Overlapping Consensus. The New York University Law Review, 64(2), 233-255. [Blackboard]

Michael Sandel (2009). Justice: What is the right thing to do? Chps 8 & 10. 320.011 SAN 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 capacity to 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 (1996) ‘Freedom as Antipower’ [Blackboard] 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

6

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 we examine 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 based on 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

7

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’. 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, conflict is 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 Paradox 321.8 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, Edinburgh University 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:MondayofthisweekisaBankHoliday

8

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 of Pluralization. 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’, in Schaap, 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: Cornell University Press. Howarth, D. (2008) Ethos, Agonism and Populism: William Connolly and the Case for Radical Democracy, British Journal of Politics and International relations 10: 171-93. Tully, J. (2006) The Agonic Freedom of Citizens. Economy and Society 28(2): 161 182. Week 11: Embodying Politics Our question for this week is whether the deliberative and agonistic approaches to democracy are adequate to the task of thinking both the subject and the space of politics. As we reach the end of the course, we will re-examine certain fundamental questions with the help of Hannah Arendt and Judith Butler: what do we mean when we evoke the notion of politics? What is to act politically? Where does politics happen? How do we do politics? Core readings:

• Arendt: ‘Introduction into Politics’, from her The Promise of Politics • Butler: Bodies in Alliance and the Politics of the Street

Additional Readings (also on Blackboard):

• Key concepts in Arendt: Natality (by Karin Fry), Labour, Work & Action (by Paul Voice), Hannah Arendt on the World (by Siobhan Kattago)

9

• Butler, J. Introduction to Gender Trouble (2nd edition, 1999) Further Reading Arendt, H. (2005) The Promise of Politics Arendt, H. (1998) The Human Condition Arendt, H. (1965) On Revolution Arendt, H. (1970) On Violence D’Entreves, M. P. (2001) The Political Philosophy of Hannah Arendt Canovan, M. (1974) The Political Thought of Hannah Arendt Butler, J. (1990) Gender Trouble Butler, J. (1993) Bodies that Matter Butler, J. (1997) The Psychic Life of Power Butler, J. (2003) The Judith Butler Reader Butler, J. (2004) Undoing Gender Butler, J. (2009) Frames of War Butler, J. (2015) Notes Towards a Performative Theory of Assembly Videos: Judith Butler: ‘A Politics of the Street’ (2002): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-bPr7t4tgA Judith Butler: ‘Why Bodies Matter’ (2015): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzWWwQDUPPM Judith Butler: ‘Short Speech on Gender’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Olc0hCY4lzI ‘Examined Life Judith Butler & Sunaura Taylor’ (2010): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0HZaPkF6qE Week 12: Course review and exam preparation The final lecture is set aside for revision and exam preparation.