Download Examiners` commentaries 2016 - University of London International

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