Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Examiners’ commentaries 2016 Examiners’ commentaries 2016 PS1130 Introduction to modern political thought Important note This commentary reflects the examination and assessment arrangements for this course in the academic year 2015–16. 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). Please note that this Examiners’ commentary refers to a newer edition of the essential textbook than the edition listed in the subject guide. You should always attempt to obtain the most recent edition of any textbook, and where references are made to page numbers of previous editions, use the index of the new edition to find the relevant section. Edition listed in subject guide: Cahn, S.M. Political philosophy: the essential texts. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010) 2nd edition [ISBN 9780195396614]. Edition referred to in this Examiners’ commentary: Cahn, S.M. Political philosophy: the essential texts. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016) 3rd edition [ISBN 9780190201081]. 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 three 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. 1 PS1130 Introduction to modern political thought Candidates have suffered in the past from failing to treat each question as free standing, as opposed to parts A and B of a common generic question. The repetition of material in two distinct answers will be marked down. 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. 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 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 of your answer. 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. We should point out, however, 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 as a good argument. The key point is how you define the issue in the question and how you marshal your evidence for the conclusions 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 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 your 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 Examiners’ commentaries 2016 Read widely You are expected to read beyond the Essential reading for each chapter and also beyond the Further reading as listed in the subject guide. The selected chapter from the textbook listed in the Further reading will provide a list of additional secondary texts and an account of the relevant debates they raise. The Further reading is the full text of the thinkers discussed in the subject guide and is listed in Chapter 1 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 offer important insights into the understanding of politics. The Essential reading is intended to provide the material on which the chapter commentary of the subject guide is based. 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 suggestions for further reading. Just as it would be ill-advised to attempt an examination solely on the basis of lecture handouts, so you should not regard the subject guide as sufficient preparation for the examination or a particular answer. The chapters in the subject guide are not model answers to examination questions. You should avoid 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 allow you to see 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 bear in mind that what is most important is your ability not only to criticise the arguments you disagree with, but also to be willing 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. The arguments you will be dealing with in this course 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 approach will provide you with the additional materials necessary for a considered and comprehensive answer to a question posed during the examination. 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. You 3 PS1130 Introduction to modern political thought should bear in mind 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. Examination revision strategy Many candidates are disappointed to find that their examination performance is poorer than what they expected. This may be due to a number of reasons. The Examiners’ commentaries suggests ways of addressing common problems and improving your performance. One particular failing is ‘question spotting’. Namely, confining your examination preparation to a few questions and/or topics that have come up in past papers for the course; this, unfortunately, can have serious consequences on your performance. 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 each course. You should read the syllabus 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. Examination papers may legitimately include questions on any topic in the syllabus. So, although past papers can be helpful during your 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 that you will find yourself in difficulty when you sit the examination. We strongly advise that you do not adopt this strategy. 4 Examiners’ commentaries 2016 Examiners’ commentaries 2016 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 2015–16. 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). Please note that this Examiners’ commentary refers to a newer edition of the essential textbook than the edition listed in the subject guide. You should always attempt to obtain the most recent edition of any textbook, and where references are made to page numbers of previous editions, use the index of the new edition to find the relevant section. Edition listed in subject guide: Cahn, S.M. Political philosophy: the essential texts. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010) 2nd edition [ISBN 9780195396614]. Edition referred to in this Examiners’ commentary: Cahn, S.M. Political philosophy: the essential texts. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016) 3rd edition [ISBN 9780190201081]. Comments on specific questions Candidates should answer THREE of the following TWELVE questions. All questions carry equal marks. Question 1 ‘Hobbes’s unwillingness to accommodate a right of resistance to the sovereign in his political theory is one of his greatest strengths.’ Discuss. Reading for this question This question refers to the reading from Hobbes in Cahn, S.M. Political philosophy: the essential texts. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016) 3rd edition [ISBN 9780190201081] and Chapter 2 of the subject guide, especially pp.18–19 and 23–25. Candidates will also find Chapter 10 of Boucher, D. and P. Kelly (eds) Political thinkers: from Socrates to the present. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009) 2nd edition [ISBN 9790199215522] useful. The latter work includes a bibliography for further additional reading to supplement candidates’ understanding of the issue concerned. However, candidates are reminded that this course seeks detailed knowledge of a particular thinker’s arguments as opposed to breadth of reading. You should be careful not to refer to additional titles or Further reading unless this is illustrative of your main argument. 5 PS1130 Introduction to modern political thought Approaching the question This question addresses the problem of sovereignty. You should be able to explain what Hobbes meant by sovereignty and why, according to Hobbes, it must be absolute. You should be able to distinguish the question of obligation to the sovereign from the question of the origin of sovereignty in an alienation contract, where individuals transfer irrevocably their subjective right or natural liberty in order to receive back from the sovereign peace and security that only his power can provide. Note that this question requires you to address the nature and scope of sovereignty. This should give you a clue to steer away from the account of choice in the state of nature. A number of candidates combined a discussion of the state of nature with the account of sovereignty and as a consequence many had their answers considerably overlap with their answer to question 2, which in the end undermined their performance. In order to provide security the sovereign must give law, and thus must be beyond the challenge of those subject to it or of 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’s account of sovereignty extends this power of absolute judgement to all things; the sovereign can even determine the laws of arithmetic. The sovereign is, nonetheless, expected to exercise his judgement and discretion in order to determine the conditions for civil peace. You should be able to explain that the idea of law needs the concept of absolute sovereignty so that it provides 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 the 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 to show that Hobbes is making a conceptual point as well as a practical one. Note that absolutism is compatible with settled law and the non-arbitrary rule and it is not a synonym for tyranny or totalitarianism. Many candidates chose to illustrate the idea by reference to tyrannical regimes from recent history but Hobbes’s point is more sophisticated. The best answers will identify the potential tension between Hobbes’s theory of absolute sovereignty and the dominant motive people have to leave the state of nature: in other words, the desire to avoid a violent death. The best answers may also show a familiarity with the arguments of Jean Hampton (1986) on this issue and excellent 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 Explain the role of natural right and the law of nature in Hobbes’s state of nature argument. Reading for this question The question refers to the reading from Hobbes in Cahn (2016) and pp.19–23 of the subject guide. Candidates will also find Chapter 10 of Boucher and Kelly (2009) useful. The latter work includes a bibliography for further additional reading to supplement candidates’ understanding of the issues concerned. However, candidates are reminded that this course seeks detailed knowledge of a particular thinker’s arguments as opposed to breadth of reading. You should be careful not to refer to additional titles or Further reading unless this is illustrative of your main argument. 6 Examiners’ commentaries 2016 Approaching the question This question directs you to address the character of the state of nature. The point of the question is to address the features of a world without political sovereignty and how 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. The explanation should be given in two parts. Firstly, it is advisable that an account of the circumstances of the state of nature is given and consequently an account of human (in Hobbes’s terms, 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 noncooperative human agents. Hobbes’s 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 explain the importance of egoism, diffidence, glory-seeking, partiality and natural equality of power. You should also give an account of Hobbes’s conception of the law of nature, particularly the three laws covering self-preservation, seeking peace and keeping promises and how these link to the account of psychology and circumstances in the state of nature. Does Hobbes’s account of the law of nature 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 this question concerns the implication of Hobbes’s account of natural law and the circumstances of war. You should discuss the relationship between the law of nature and the right of nature. The right of nature is the unrestricted right to self-preservation and all actions that are necessary to ensure it, including the liberty to preemptively attack others who might pose a threat in the state of nature. In classical natural law theory, rights are derived from the laws of nature but in Hobbes’s case the right is prior to the law. This relates to the question of the status of Hobbes’s theory of natural law: are these rules that bind and create strict obligations or are they merely prudential rules that serve the natural right of self-preservation? Finally, you should consider whether prudential interpretation of the law of nature is consistent with Hobbes’s account of obligations in the state of civil society. For example, if a sovereign threatens individuals through his deployment of the death penalty, then why would the prudential maxim (law of nature) to keep covenants not give way to a maxim of disobeying the sovereign in order to preserve oneself? Question 3 Explain the distinction between express and tacit consent in Locke’s argument and which is the more important? Reading for this question This question refers to the reading from Locke in Cahn (2016) and Chapter 3 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 candidates’ understanding of the issues concerned. However, candidates are reminded that this course seeks detailed knowledge of a particular thinker’s arguments as opposed to breadth of reading. You should be careful not to refer to additional titles or Further reading unless this is illustrative of your main argument. 7 PS1130 Introduction to modern political thought Approaching the question 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. Locke claims that we have natural rights to life, liberty and property. As such, the only source of obligations is the law that distributes these rights. You should be able to show how Locke conceives the state to be an association that we freely establish in order 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 generations to agree to and authorise political sovereignty. For this reason Locke turns from contract to consent theory. You should be able to distinguish between the role and character of express and tacit consent and illustrate this distinction with examples. Good answers will assess the plausibility of the idea of tacit consent and whether it counts as a theory of consent at all. The best answers will enumerate the ways in which both express and tacit consent can be manifested as well as the necessary criteria for an act of consent. It would also be a good idea for you to consider whether the idea of tacit consent undermines Locke’s commitment to consent as a basis for political obligation and how it would be possible refuse tacit consent if it can be manifested through nonintentional actions. 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. Question 4 Explain and assess Locke’s arguments for the origin of private property. Reading for this question The fourth question refers to the reading from Locke in Cahn (2016) and pp.27–34 of the subject guide, especially pp.28–31. Candidates will also find Chapter 12 of Boucher and Kelly (2009) especially useful. The latter work includes a bibliography for further additional reading to supplement candidates’ understanding of the issues concerned. The same proviso as for previous questions applies here. Candidates are reminded that this course seeks detailed knowledge of a particular thinker’s argument or aspects of it, as opposed to breadth of reading. Approaching the question This question is about Locke’s account of property prior to the state. Those who read the full text of Locke’s Second Treatise, listed in the Further reading section of the subject guide (Locke, J. Two treatises on government. (ed. P. Laslett) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988) [ISBN 0521357306]), will be aware that 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 8 Examiners’ commentaries 2016 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 need to 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 argument can be contrasted with Hobbes’s state of nature – although you should avoid spending too much time on comparisons. Similarly, although Locke’s account of labour theory can be analysed using the ideas of Marx (who has a labour theory of value), some candidates spent rather too much time on Marx’s critique as opposed to 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 Locke’s 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 5 Critically assess the place of the harm principle in Mill’s defence of liberty. Reading for this question The fifth question refers to the reading from J.S. Mill in Cahn (2016) and Chapter 4 of the subject guide, especially pp.38–39 and p.42. Candidates will also find Chapter 21 of Boucher and Kelly (2009) useful. The latter work includes a bibliography for further additional reading to supplement candidates’ understanding of the issues concerned. The same proviso as for previous questions applies here. Candidates are reminded that this course seeks detailed knowledge of a particular thinker’s argument or aspects of it, as opposed to breadth of reading. Approaching the question This question focuses directly in the essay On liberty and Mill’s explanation and defence of the liberty principle (Mill, J.S. On liberty and other essays. (ed. J. Gray) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008) [ISBN 9780199535736]). 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. Firstly, 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 of 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 may also wish to consider the connection between majority opinion and the greatest happiness of the greatest number as found in Mill’s utilitarianism. The second thing to be noted 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: the interests of criminals, for example. And all free actions might cause harm in some way. I can harm 9 PS1130 Introduction to modern political thought 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-regarding 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 child? Secondly, given the consequences of action and the social context in which it takes place, can any action be purely self-regarding? You may want to try and think of examples to include in your answer. 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 the slandering of particular social or ethnic groups, or of hate speech? The use of examples to illustrate and test Mill’s theory is central to a successful answer to this question. You should also remember to relate the discussion of issues to the categories and distinctions that Mill uses in his essay. Question 6 Why does Mill attach such importance to the idea of ‘experiments in living’ in his theory of liberty? Reading for this question The sixth question also refers to the reading from J.S. Mill in Cahn (2016) and Chapter 4 of the subject guide, especially pp.38–39 and p.42. Candidates will also find Chapter 21 of Boucher and Kelly (2009) useful. The latter work includes a bibliography for further additional reading to supplement candidates’ understanding of the issue concerned. The same proviso as for previous questions applies here. Candidates are reminded that this course seeks detailed knowledge of a particular thinker’s argument or aspect of it, as opposed to breadth of reading. Approaching the question This question draws attention to Mill’s value of liberty. Where the harm principle specifies the sphere and limits of freedom or liberty, the rest of Mill’s argument in On liberty concerns the value of liberty. He develops two main arguments. The first concerns freedom of speech and publication and the second concerns a similar argument but applied to lifestyle and experience. You should examine and contrast between freedom of speech and freedom of expression and the arguments that Mill uses to defend them. You will need to describe experiments in living. Mill argues that the defence of spheres of self-regarding action is designed to allow individuals to develop ways of living free from interference by others. Mill argues that experimentation in living is just as important for moral and social progress as experimentation in thought and argument is for progress in knowledge 10 Examiners’ commentaries 2016 and ideas. This is Mill’s attempt to provide a defence of autonomy from within a utilitarian and naturalistic ethical theory. You should link the discussion of experiments in living to ideas such as harm and self-regarding actions but you should be careful to distinguish the answer to this question from that of the previous question. Finally, Mill’s critics argue that his defence of experiments in living is an attack on traditional and particularly religiously-inspired moral practices. This is illustrated by the way in which Mill’s arguments were used in defending the decriminalisation of homosexuality in the UK. Far from being a way of experimenting to discover new ways of finding value in life, the argument of experiments in living is a way of imposing a liberal and anti-conventionalist morality on society. Instead of offering a defence of freedom and experimentation, it is often claimed that Mill’s argument is a form of state paternalism. The best answers will explore Mill’s views on paternalism, perfectionism and liberalism. Question 7 Critically assess Rousseau’s account of the state of nature. Reading for this question The seventh question refers to the reading from J-J. Rousseau in Cahn (2016) and Chapter 5 of the subject guide, especially pp.47–50. Candidates will also find Chapter 15 of Boucher and Kelly (2009) useful. The latter work includes a bibliography for further additional reading to supplement candidates’ understanding of the issue concerned. The same proviso as for previous questions applies here. Candidates are reminded that this course seeks detailed knowledge of a particular thinker’s argument or aspects of it, as opposed to breadth of reading. Approaching the question 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, Rousseau emphasises our natural condition as one of equality and blames civil society as 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 (Rousseau, J-J. The basic political writings. (ed. D.A. Cress) (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1987) [ISBN0872200477]). 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 the Discourse and how he lacks fear of death and is not in a condition of scarcity. This can be contrasted with features of the arguments of Hobbes and Locke. You should also be able to account, given this primitive state of natural innocence, for the emergence of civil society and divisions of rank following the discovery of technology (in particular metallurgy and agriculture). This should be used to explain the emergence of both society and relationships of rank and inequality. In turn, this 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’. Rousseau is offering the contract as a source of oppression and domination, which appears to be the reason he rejects social contract theory. The best answers will distinguish between the emergence of amour propre (egoistic love of self and status within society) and amour de soi (simple self-concern in the natural condition). Good answers will also be 11 PS1130 Introduction to modern political thought 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 criticising rival contract theories for their reliance on natural inequality. On this final point, you may wish to consider whether the idea of the social contract in Rousseau’s work of that name is radically different from the original contract theories of his forebears. Is Rousseau really a contract theorist at all? Question 8 Is Rousseau’s idea that one can be forced to be free a contradiction in terms? Reading for this question The eighth question refers to the reading from J-J. Rousseau in Cahn (2016) and Chapter 5 of the subject guide, especially pp.49–52. Candidates will also find Chapter 15 of Boucher and Kelly (2009) useful. The latter work includes a bibliography for further additional reading to supplement candidates’ understanding of the issue concerned. The same proviso as for previous questions applies here. Candidates are reminded that this course seeks detailed knowledge of a particular thinker’s argument or aspect of it, as opposed to breadth of reading. Approaching the question 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, which is at the heart of Rousseau’s theory. The full text of The social contract is listed in the Further readings on p.4 of the subject guide (Rousseau, J-J. The basic political writings. (ed. D.A. Cress) (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1987) [ISBN 0872200477]). Good answers will identify Rousseau’s discussion of freedom 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 although man is born free (as claimed by all previous contract theorists such as Hobbes and Locke) he is ‘everywhere in chains’ or not free. Having explained the problem of reconciling personal liberty and political rule you should turn to Rousseau’s 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 political society through the notion that each person submits himself to rule by all others. According to Rousseau, since everyone does the same, the idea of subjection is cancelled out and therefore 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 be able to explain and analyse the so-called paradox of being forced to be free: how the law emanating from the general will is the real will of the citizens to whom it applies. 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 potential for Rousseau’s argument to support totalitarianism. 12 Examiners’ commentaries 2016 You may want to use Isaiah Berlin’s distinction between positive and negative conceptions of liberty and use a discussion of that distinction to provide an appraisal of the strengths and weaknesses of Rousseau’s argument. You will find this discussion in Boucher and Kelly (2009). Question 9 What does Hegel mean by the end of history? Reading for this question The ninth question also refers to the reading from Hegel in Cahn (2016) and Chapter 6 of the subject guide, especially pp.18–19 and pp.23–25. Candidates will also find Chapter 24 of Boucher and Kelly (2009) useful. The latter work includes a bibliography for further additional reading to supplement candidates’ understanding of the issue concerned. The same proviso as for previous questions applies here. Candidates are reminded that this course seeks detailed knowledge of a particular thinker’s argument or aspect of it, as opposed to breadth of reading. Approaching the question This question is designed to draw candidates’ attention to Hegel’s theory of history as a history of freedom. This question refers directly to his theory of history as tending towards the ideal of the state as the ultimate telos or goal of political history. Although the discussion of the nature of the state will be part of your answer, you should avoid being diverted by discussions of the institutional structure of the Hegelian state. Instead, you need to concentrate on the structure and logic of history as the unfolding of the idea of Geist (or mind/consciousness), which, in this case, is manifested as human freedom. You should further take into consideration how this has taken different forms at different stages of human development. It is advisable that you spend some time explaining this complex idea. You should also be able to provide a good account of Hegel’s idealist dialectic, with its acknowledgement of the rationality of freedom and its immanence in the historical process. You should be able to show how ideas of freedom are abstractions from a rational historical experience and are tied to epochs and sets of institutions and practices. You will also need to explain the dynamic of historical change through the dialectical relationship of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. You should illustrate this logic in the form of the emergence of the state. This raises the final point about what Hegel meant by describing the triumph of the state as the end of history. Does Hegel mean that the progress of history is always towards the emergence of the modern state, after which history comes to an end? This is the view, popularised in the 1990s by Francis Fukuyama, about the triumph of liberal democracy. Hegel might also have made this point for the political censors, given that he was a civil servant of the Prussian State. Yet Hegel’s image of the ‘owl of Minerva’ taking flight at dusk suggests that his view is more complex. The idea is that we only understand the historical process from our own perspective as we are always at the end of history. You should consider whether this is Hegel’s warning against making predictions about the future. Question 10 What does Hegel mean by considering the state a form of ethical life? Reading for this question The tenth question refers to the reading from Hegel in Cahn (2016) and Chapter 6 of the subject guide, especially pp.55–59. Candidates will also find Chapter 24 of Boucher and Kelly (2009) useful. The latter work 13 PS1130 Introduction to modern political thought includes a bibliography for further additional reading to supplement candidates’ understanding of the issues concerned. The same proviso as for previous questions applies here. Candidates are reminded that this course seeks detailed knowledge of a particular thinker’s argument or aspects of it, as opposed to breadth of reading. Approaching the question 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. In short, this is an account of the state as the sphere of an ethical life in which individuals can become political and moral agents. 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 being 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 in Hegel’s historical dialectic by using the three main sources of modern identity: namely, the family, civil society and ultimately the state. 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. You should describe the conceptions of identity that derive from these two incomplete forms of ethical community. 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 that were also raised by Rousseau’s 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, you 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 may wish to consider how plausible Hegel’s claim is. Question 11 Explain Marx’s conception of class and why it is so important in his account of historical change? Reading for this question The eleventh question refers to the reading from Marx in Cahn (2016) and pp.72–74 of the subject guide. Candidates will also find Chapter 26 of Boucher and Kelly (2009) useful. The latter work includes a bibliography 14 Examiners’ commentaries 2016 for further additional reading to supplement candidates’ understanding of the issues concerned. The same proviso as for previous questions applies here. Candidates are reminded that this course seeks detailed knowledge of a particular thinker’s argument or aspects of it, as opposed to breadth of reading. Approaching the question 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 asks you to engage with 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 end, an account of Marx’s materialism is necessary for a good answer. You should then attempt to give an account of 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. Excellent answers will link Marx’s twoclass explanation of Capitalism 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 this change must ultimately be revolutionary. By way of critical analysis the best answers may consider whether Marx’s position is too narrowly reductionist and whether he misses the significance of other factors such as nationality, race and gender. You may wish to illustrate this issue by referring to Marx’s discussion of Jewish emancipation in On the Jewish question (Marx, K. Selected writings. (ed. D. McLellan) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000) [ISBN 0198782659]). Question 12 Why does Marx think that communism is the inevitable successor to capitalism? Reading for this question The twelfth question refers to the reading from Marx in Cahn (2016) and Chapter 7 of the subject guide, especially pp.72–74. Candidates will also find Chapter 26 of Boucher and Kelly (2009) useful. The latter work includes a bibliography for further additional reading to supplement candidates’ understanding of the issue concerned. The same proviso as for previous questions applies here. Candidates are reminded that this course seeks detailed knowledge of a particular thinker’s argument or aspect of it, as opposed to breadth of reading. Approaching the question This question asks you to explain the significance of the term communism in Marx. You must try to avoid 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; in other words, the way in which man’s labour power is turned into something that can be bought and sold as a material object. This form of objectification is part of the way in which man is alienated or distanced from his species-being. 15 PS1130 Introduction to modern political thought Communism is therefore a necessary condition of human freedom and emancipation. You should also consider the status of Marx’s indictment: does it 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 and one that leads to internal crisis and contradiction? A similar analysis and critique should be offered of the concept of exploitation and how it 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 as to what Marx’s views are. A critical assessment of how communism overcomes the need for politics is a good way of concluding this topic. 16 Examiners’ commentaries 2016 Examiners’ commentaries 2016 PS1130 Introduction to modern political thought – Zone B Important note This commentary reflects the examination and assessment arrangements for this course in the academic year 2015–16. 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). Please note that this Examiners’ commentary refers to a newer edition of the essential textbook than the edition listed in the subject guide. You should always attempt to obtain the most recent edition of any textbook, and where references are made to page numbers of previous editions, use the index of the new edition to find the relevant section. Edition listed in subject guide: Cahn, S.M. Political philosophy: the essential texts. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010) 2nd edition [ISBN 9780195396614]. Edition referred to in this Examiners’ commentary: Cahn, S.M. Political philosophy: the essential texts. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016) 3rd edition [ISBN 9780190201081]. Comments on specific questions Candidates should answer THREE of the following TWELVE questions. All questions carry equal marks. Question 1 Critically assess Hobbes’s defence of absolute sovereignty. Reading for this question This question refers to the reading from Hobbes in Cahn, S.M. Political philosophy: the essential texts. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016) 3rd edition [ISBN 9780190201081] and Chapter 2 of the subject guide, especially pp.19–23. Candidates will also find Chapter 10 of Boucher, D. and P. Kelly (eds) Political thinkers: from Socrates to the present. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009) 2nd edition [ISBN 9790199215522] useful. The latter work includes a bibliography for further additional reading to supplement candidates’ understanding of the issue concerned. However, candidates are reminded that this course seeks detailed knowledge of a particular thinker’s arguments as opposed to breadth of reading. You should be careful not to refer to additional titles or Further reading unless this is illustrative of your main argument. Approaching the question This question addresses the problem of sovereignty. You should be able to explain what Hobbes meant by sovereignty and why, according to Hobbes, 17 PS1130 Introduction to modern political thought it must be absolute. You should be able to distinguish the question of obligation to the sovereign from the question of the origin of sovereignty in an alienation contract, where individuals transfer irrevocably their subjective right or natural liberty in order to receive back from the sovereign peace and security that only his power can provide. Note that this question requires you to address the nature and scope of sovereignty. This should give you a clue to steer away from the account of choice in the state of nature. A number of candidates combined a discussion of the state of nature with the account of sovereignty and as a consequence many had their answers considerably overlap with their answer to question 2, which in the end undermined their performance. In order to provide security the sovereign must give law and thus must be beyond the challenge of those subject to it or of 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’s account of sovereignty extends this power of absolute judgement to all things; the sovereign can even determine the laws of arithmetic. The sovereign is, nonetheless, expected to exercise his judgement and discretion in order to determine the conditions for civil peace. You should be able to explain that the idea of law needs the concept of absolute sovereignty so that it provides 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 the 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 to show that Hobbes is making a conceptual point as well as a practical one. Note that absolutism is compatible with settled law and the non-arbitrary rule and it is not a synonym for tyranny or totalitarianism. Many candidates chose to illustrate the idea by reference to tyrannical regimes from recent history but Hobbes’s point is more sophisticated. The best answers will identify the potential tension between Hobbes’s theory of absolute sovereignty and the dominant motive people have to leave the state of nature. In other words, the desire to avoid a violent death. The best answers may also show a familiarity with the arguments of Jean Hampton (1986) on this issue and excellent 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 Explain the role of natural right and the law of nature in Hobbes’s state of nature argument. Reading for this question The question refers to the reading from Hobbes in Cahn (2016) and pp.19–23 of the subject guide. Candidates will also find Chapter 10 of Boucher and Kelly (2009) useful. The latter work includes a bibliography for further additional reading to supplement candidates’ understanding of the issues concerned. However, candidates are reminded that this course seeks detailed knowledge of a particular thinker’s arguments as opposed to breadth of reading. You should be careful not to refer to additional titles or Further reading unless this is illustrative of your main argument. Approaching the question This question directs you to address the character of the state of nature. The point of the question is to address the features of a world without political sovereignty and how we would create such a power. 18 Examiners’ commentaries 2016 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. The explanation should be given in two parts. Firstly, it is advisable that an account of the circumstances of the state of nature is given and consequently an account of human (in Hobbes’s terms, 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 noncooperative human agents. Hobbes’s 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 explain the importance of egoism, diffidence, glory-seeking, partiality and natural equality of power. You should also give an account of Hobbes’s conception of the law of nature, particularly the three laws covering self-preservation, seeking peace and keeping promises and how these link to the account of psychology and circumstances in the state of nature. Does Hobbes’s account of the law of nature 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 this question concerns the implication of Hobbes’s account of natural law and the circumstances of war. You should discuss the relationship between the law of nature and the right of nature. The right of nature is the unrestricted right to self-preservation and all actions that are necessary to ensure it, including the liberty to preemptively attack others who might pose a threat in the state of nature. In classical natural law theory, rights are derived from the laws of nature but in Hobbes’s case the right is prior to the law. This relates to the question of the status of Hobbes’s theory of natural law: are these rules that bind and create strict obligations or are they merely prudential rules that serve the natural right of self-preservation? Finally, you should consider whether prudential interpretation of the law of nature is consistent with Hobbes’s account of obligations in the state of civil society. For example, if a sovereign threatens individuals through his deployment of the death penalty, then why would the prudential maxim (law of nature) to keep covenants not give way to a maxim of disobeying the sovereign in order to preserve oneself? Question 3 Explain the distinction between express and tacit consent in Locke’s argument and which is the more important. Reading for this question This question refers to the reading from Locke in Cahn (2016) and Chapter 3 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 candidates’ understanding of the issues concerned. However, candidates are reminded that this course seeks detailed knowledge of a particular thinker’s arguments as opposed to breadth of reading. You should be careful not to refer to additional titles or Further reading unless this is illustrative of your main argument. Approaching the question 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. Locke claims that we have natural rights to life, liberty and property. As such, the only source of obligations is the law that distributes these rights. You should be able to show how Locke conceives 19 PS1130 Introduction to modern political thought the state to be an association that we freely establish in order 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 generations to agree to and authorise political sovereignty. For this reason Locke turns from contract to consent theory. You should be able to distinguish between the role and character of express and tacit consent and illustrate this distinction with examples. Good answers will assess the plausibility of the idea of tacit consent and whether it counts as a theory of consent at all. The best answers will enumerate the ways in which both express and tacit consent can be manifested as well as the necessary criteria for an act of consent. It would also be a good idea for you to consider whether the idea of tacit consent undermines Locke’s commitment to consent as a basis for political obligation and how it would be possible refuse tacit consent if it can be manifested through non-intentional actions. 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. Question 4 Why does Locke attach such importance to the concept of private property in his political theory? Reading for this question The fourth question refers to the reading from Locke in Cahn (2016) and Chapter 3 of the subject guide, especially pp.28–31. Candidates will also find Chapter 11 of Boucher and Kelly (2009) especially useful. The latter work includes a bibliography for further additional reading to supplement candidates’ understanding of the issue concerned. However, candidates are reminded that this course seeks detailed knowledge of a particular thinker’s arguments as opposed to breadth of reading. You should be careful not to refer to additional titles or Further reading unless this is illustrative of your main argument. Approaching the question This question is primarily about the link between private property and the concept of natural law and natural rights in Locke’s work. You should be able to distinguish between these concepts and explain their relative priority. For Locke the law of nature is a law of reason and it is identified by the exercise of reason. In making this point Locke extends the usual position about the prudential rationality of self-preservation to an argument in favour of preserving all things as much as possible. To make this argument Locke draws on the idea of a created order. As the world is created, the created order belongs to the Creator and therefore it is the Creator’s property. As human beings are part of that order, they too are property of the Creator and therefore must not be destroyed by any third party. In this way, Locke shows how the rights of nature proceed from the law of nature and give rise to rights to life, liberty and property in things necessary for self-preservation. The argument stemming from divine creation also suggests that all natural rights are types of property right held by the Creator. As such it is placing obligations on everyone else not to kill or deny liberty to others, which is a prerogative of the Creator, unless this is to preserve others by preventing harm, violence or the denial of property. 20 Examiners’ commentaries 2016 As no person can be killed or denied liberty, the right to do both being the property of the Creator, it is often argued that people enjoy a property in their own person. Certainly if that nature is actually owned by the Creator then the idea of property in the person is at best a derivative idea. The question asks whether the concept of property is the most important in Locke’s account of natural rights. Some commentators suggest that all of Locke’s rights of nature are reducible to property. Not all agree, however. Other commentators argue that Locke attaches more importance to the concept of liberty, without which the concept of property in land or things would be meaningless. The final point that you may wish to consider is the conception of politics that emerges from Locke’s account of natural rights. Some critics claim that Locke is a possessive individualist who reduces everything to the idea of property as part of an early ideological justification of capitalism. A number of candidates advanced this interpretation of Locke. A few of the best answers provided a critical discussion of the possessive individualist thesis. Question 5 Does Mill succeed in reconciling liberty and utility? Reading for this question The fifth question refers to the reading from J.S. Mill in Cahn (2016) and Chapter 4 of the subject guide. Candidates will also find Chapter 21 of Boucher and Kelly (2009) useful. The latter work includes a bibliography for further additional reading to supplement candidates’ understanding of the issues concerned. The same proviso as for previous questions applies here. Candidates are reminded that this course seeks detailed knowledge of a particular thinker’s argument or aspects of it, as opposed to breadth of reading. Approaching the question This question focuses on the tension between the demands of the principle of utility and that of liberty. 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’. You may give an overview of the main arguments in the essay ‘Utilitarianism’ (Mill, J.S. On liberty and other essays. (ed. J. Gray) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008) [ISBN 9780199535736]), which is listed in the Further reading of the introduction to the subject guide. Alongside this, Mill also defends the 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 it 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 selfregarding and other-regarding actions. Good answers will also be able to relate Mill’s defence of liberty to his account of justice and rights found in Chapter 5 of On liberty. Using this work, you will then need to consider a number of solutions to the problem of compatibility. One may be that Mill is just inconsistent. Another may be that Mill thought that the liberty principle would, as a 21 PS1130 Introduction to modern political thought matter of fact, always be to the interest of the greatest happiness of the greatest number. You may wish here to consider some examples where small restrictions of liberty bring about considerable benefits. Such examples may be ‘health and safety’ or danger warnings on products and paternalist legislation such as compulsory education or the wearing of seatbelts. Lastly, Mill distinguishes between different 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 may be seen as a practical principle prescribing what one should do. The former does not create obligations, whereas the latter does. Question 6 Why does Mill attach such importance to the idea of ‘experiments in living’ in his theory of liberty? Reading for this question The sixth question also refers to the reading from J.S. Mill in Cahn (2016) and Chapter 4 of the subject guide, especially pp.38–39 and p.42. Candidates will also find Chapter 21 of Boucher and Kelly (2009) useful. The latter work includes a bibliography for further additional reading to supplement candidates’ understanding of the issue concerned. The same proviso as for previous questions applies here. Candidates are reminded that this course seeks detailed knowledge of a particular thinker’s argument or aspect of it, as opposed to breadth of reading. Approaching the question This question draws attention to Mill’s value of liberty. Where the harm principle specifies the sphere and limits of freedom or liberty, the rest of Mill’s argument in On liberty concerns the value of liberty. He develops two main arguments. The first concerns freedom of speech and publication and the second concerns a similar argument but applied to lifestyle and experience. You should examine and contrast between freedom of speech and freedom of expression and the arguments that Mill uses to defend them. You will need to describe experiments in living. Mill argues that the defence of spheres of self-regarding action is designed to allow individuals to develop ways of living free from interference by others. Mill argues that experimentation in living is just as important for moral and social progress as experimentation in thought and argument is for progress in knowledge and ideas. This is Mill’s attempt to provide a defence of autonomy from within a utilitarian and naturalistic ethical theory. You should link the discussion of experiments in living to ideas such as harm and self-regarding actions but you should be careful to distinguish the answer to this question from that of the previous question. Finally, Mill’s critics argue that his defence of experiments in living is an attack on traditional and particularly religiously-inspired moral practices. This is illustrated by the way in which Mill’s arguments were used in defending the decriminalisation of homosexuality in the UK. Far from being a way of experimenting to discover new ways of finding value in life, the argument of experiments in living is a way of imposing a liberal and anti-conventionalist morality on society. Instead of offering a defence of freedom and experimentation, it is often claimed that Mill’s argument is a form of state paternalism. The best answers will explore Mill’s views on paternalism, perfectionism and liberalism. 22 Examiners’ commentaries 2016 Question 7 Critically assess Rousseau’s critique of state of nature theories. Reading for this question The seventh question refers to the reading from J-J. Rousseau in Cahn (2016) and Chapter 5 of the subject guide, especially pp.47–50. Candidates will also find Chapter 15 of Boucher and Kelly (2009) useful. The latter work includes a bibliography for further additional reading to supplement candidates’ understanding of the issue concerned. The same proviso as for previous questions applies here. Candidates are reminded that this course seeks detailed knowledge of a particular thinker’s argument or aspects of it, as opposed to breadth of reading. Approaching the question 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, Rousseau emphasises our natural condition as one of equality and blames civil society as 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 (Rousseau, J-J. The basic political writings. (ed. D.A. Cress) (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1987) [ISBN0872200477]). 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 the Discourse and how he lacks fear of death and is not in a condition of scarcity. This can be contrasted with features of the arguments of Hobbes and Locke. You should also be able to account, given this primitive state of natural innocence, for the emergence of civil society and divisions of rank following the discovery of technology (in particular metallurgy and agriculture). This should be used to explain the emergence of both society and relationships of rank and inequality. In turn, this 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’. Rousseau is offering the contract as a source of oppression and domination, which appears to be the reason he rejects the social contract theory. The best answers will distinguish between the emergence of amour propre (egoistic love of self and status within society) and amour de soi (simple self-concern in the natural condition). Good answers will 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 criticising rival contract theories for their reliance on natural inequality. On this final point, you may wish to consider whether the idea of the social contract in Rousseau’s work of that name is radically different from the original contract theories of his forebears. Is Rousseau really a contract theorist at all? Question 8 Is Rousseau’s idea that one can be forced to be free a contradiction in terms? Reading for this question The eighth question refers to the reading from J-J. Rousseau in Cahn (2016) and Chapter 5 of the subject guide, especially pp.49–52. Candidates will also find Chapter 15 of Boucher and Kelly (2009) useful. 23 PS1130 Introduction to modern political thought The latter work includes a bibliography for further additional reading to supplement candidates’ understanding of the issue concerned. The same proviso as for previous questions applies here. Candidates are reminded that this course seeks detailed knowledge of a particular thinker’s argument or aspect of it, as opposed to breadth of reading. Approaching the question 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, which is at the heart of Rousseau’s theory. The full text of The social contract is listed in the Further readings on p.4 of the subject guide (Rousseau, J-J. The basic political writings. (ed. D.A. Cress) (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1987) [ISBN 0872200477]). Good answers will identify Rousseau’s discussion of freedom 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 although man is born free (as claimed by all previous contract theorists such as Hobbes and Locke) he is ‘everywhere in chains’ or not free. Having explained the problem of reconciling personal liberty and political rule you should turn to Rousseau’s 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 political society through the notion that each person submits himself to rule by all others. According to Rousseau, since everyone does the same, the idea of subjection is cancelled out and therefore 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 be able to explain and analyse the so-called paradox of being forced to be free: how the law emanating from the general will is the real will of the citizens to whom it applies. 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 potential for Rousseau’s argument to support totalitarianism. You may want to use Isaiah Berlin’s distinction between positive and negative conceptions of liberty and use a discussion of that distinction to provide an appraisal of the strengths and weaknesses of Rousseau’s argument. You will find this discussion in Boucher and Kelly (2009). Question 9 What does Hegel mean by the end of history? Reading for this question The ninth question also refers to the reading from Hegel in Cahn (2016) and Chapter 6 of the subject guide, especially pp.18–19 and pp.23–25. Candidates will also find Chapter 24 of Boucher and Kelly (2009) useful. The latter work includes a bibliography for further additional reading to supplement candidates’ understanding of the issue concerned. The same proviso as for previous questions applies here. Candidates are reminded 24 Examiners’ commentaries 2016 that this course seeks detailed knowledge of a particular thinker’s argument or aspect of it, as opposed to breadth of reading. Approaching the question This question is designed to draw candidates’ attention to Hegel’s theory of history as a history of freedom. This question refers directly to his theory of history as tending towards the ideal of the state as the ultimate telos or goal of political history. Although the discussion of the nature of the state will be part of your answer, you should avoid being diverted by discussions of the institutional structure of the Hegelian state. Instead, you need to concentrate on the structure and logic of history as the unfolding of the idea of Geist (or mind/consciousness), which, in this case, is manifested as human freedom. You should further take into consideration how this has taken different forms at different stages of human development. It is advisable that you spend some time explaining this complex idea. You should also be able to provide a good account of Hegel’s idealist dialectic, with its acknowledgement of the rationality of freedom and its immanence in the historical process. You should be able to show how ideas of freedom are abstractions from a rational historical experience and tied to epochs and sets of institutions and practices. You will also need to explain the dynamic of historical change through the dialectical relationship of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. You should illustrate this logic in the form of the emergence of the state. This raises the final point about what Hegel meant by describing the triumph of the state as the end of history. Does Hegel mean that the progress of history is always towards the emergence of the modern state, after which history comes to an end? This is the view, popularised in the 1990s by Francis Fukuyama, about the triumph of liberal democracy. Hegel might also have made this point for the political censors, given that he was a civil servant of the Prussian State. Yet Hegel’s image of the ‘owl of Minerva’ taking flight at dusk suggests that his view is more complex. The idea is that we only understand the historical process from our own perspective as we are always at the end of history. You should consider whether this is Hegel’s warning against making predictions about the future. Question 10 Why, for Hegel, is war and conflict an ineradicable feature of the state system? Reading for this question The tenth question refers to the reading from Hegel in Cahn (2016) and Chapter 6 of the subject guide, especially pp.55–59. Candidates will also find Chapter 24 of Boucher and Kelly (2009) useful. The latter work includes a bibliography for further additional reading to supplement candidates’ understanding of the issue concerned. The same proviso as for previous questions applies here. Candidates are reminded that this course seeks detailed knowledge of a particular thinker’s argument or aspect of it, as opposed to breadth of reading. Approaching the question 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 process. Individuation is a process that continues through different historical phases culminating in the modern state. To answer this you will need to cover some of the ground of the previous question but be careful to not simply repeat the same material. 25 PS1130 Introduction to modern political thought Hegel uses the struggle for identity in his communitarian theory to explain the emergence of personal identity. He extends the argument to explain the individuation of particular political communities as states. States also emerge from this struggle for recognition and that is the basis of his account of the rational function of war in history. You should note that Hegel’s theory of history as a rational process confers the idea of rationality on each dimension of that process. This point leads to his claim that ‘the real is the rational’. Consequently, war is part of that rational process through which particular states emerge and assert their independence from one another. The best answers will consider whether this explanation is an account of the rationality of war in previous history or whether the process of state formation entails war as part of its logic. You should also explain the 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 commerce which make our natures selfish and egoistic. In the second, as the role of war is the condition for 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. If you want to claim that Hegel’s argument is not that war is logically necessary to state formation then you may want to suggest other ways in which states can sustain patriotic ties and discuss whether these can achieve the effects that Hegel thinks are necessary. Question 11 ‘For Karl Marx, all politics is reducible to class conflict.’ Discuss. Reading for this question The eleventh question refers to the reading from Marx in Cahn (2016) and Chapter 7 of the subject guide, especially pp.72–74. Candidates will also find Chapter 24 of Boucher and Kelly (2009) useful. The latter work includes a bibliography for further additional reading to supplement candidates’ understanding of the issue concerned. The same proviso as for previous questions applies here. Candidates are reminded that this course seeks detailed knowledge of a particular thinker’s argument or aspect of it, as opposed to breadth of reading. Approaching the question This question refers to the role of class in Marx’s theory. Most importantly, the question asks you to engage with 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 end, an account of Marx’s materialism is necessary for a good answer. You should then attempt to give an account of the role of class conflict and class identity. You should be able to distinguish Marx’s account from utopian and revisionist socialist accounts. Both are concerned with the moral condemnation of capitalism and the attempt to pursue questions of social justice and political reform independently of class relations. You should instead 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 this change must ultimately be revolutionary. 26 Examiners’ commentaries 2016 By way of critical analysis the best answers may consider whether Marx’s position is too narrowly reductionist and whether he misses the significance of other factors such as nationality, race and gender. You may wish to illustrate this issue by referring to Marx’s discussion of Jewish emancipation in On the Jewish question (Marx, K. Selected writings. (ed. D. McLellan) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000) [ISBN 0198782659]). Question 12 Why does Marx think that communism is the inevitable successor to capitalism? Reading for this question The twelfth question refers to the reading from Marx in Cahn (2016) and Chapter 7 of the subject guide, especially pp.72–74. Candidates will also find Chapter 26 of Boucher and Kelly (2009) useful. The latter work includes a bibliography for further additional reading to supplement candidates’ understanding of the issue concerned. The same proviso as for previous questions applies here. Candidates are reminded that this course seeks detailed knowledge of a particular thinker’s argument or aspect of it, as opposed to breadth of reading. Approaching the question This question asks you to explain the significance of the term ‘communism’ in Marx. You must try to avoid 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; in other words, the way in which man’s labour power is turned into something that can be bought and sold as a material 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 it 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 and one that leads to internal crisis and contradiction? A similar analysis and critique should be offered of the concept of exploitation and how it 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 as to what Marx’s views are. A critical assessment of how communism overcomes the need for politics is a good way of concluding this topic. 27