Conflicts and Political Legitimacy
A.Y. 2019/2020
Learning objectives
The main objective of the course consists in familiarizing students with questions at the centre of contemporary philosophical debates and in providing them with competences to address and critically discuss issues concerning political legitimacy in societies characterized by the presence of conflicting claims and moral views. More precisely, on the one hand, the course aims at providing students with tools to frame the notion of conflict, to identify its different sources, to understand its dynamics and its implications for politics and for political philosophy. The course also intends to familiarize students with the various approaches and strategies available to tackle conflict and with the relevant criteria to comparatively assess them. On the other hand, the course proposes to enlighten the close link between conflict and political legitimacy and to offer an overview of the major conceptions of political legitimacy developed in recent years.
Expected learning outcomes
Knowledge and understanding:
Students are expected to acquire in-depth knowledge and clear understanding about the controversial questions concerning political legitimacy in societies characterized by the presence of conflicting claims and moral views. Students are also expected to acquire familiarity with the relevant criteria to examine different forms of conflict or disagreement and to critically assess their implications, on the one hand, and with different conceptions of political obligation and political legitimacy, on the other.
Applying knowledge and understanding:
At the end of the course, students are expected to be able to apply their acquired knowledge and competences about the philosophical reflection to issues animating public debates. To this end, the course offers several occasions for in-depth class discussion, which will provide a suitable space for debating the relevance and import of the philosophical notions and approaches under examination with respect to more concrete issues and questions. Moreover, during classes, the theoretical notions and models under investigations will be illustrated through references to actual cases of political conflict and to situations that call into question the notion of political legitimacy. This will enable students to better appreciate the relevance of the philosophical arguments addressed by the course for tackling specific problems and addressing controversial public questions.
Making judgements:
The structure of the course and the selected readings is expected to increase students' propensity for autonomous judgment. On the one hand, the course will address essays providing opposite arguments concerning, for instance, the role of conflict in politics or the strategies to manage it and defending different conceptions of political legitimacy and political obligation. Students will be therefore introduced to a plurality of perspectives and this is expected to improve their capacity to adjudicate among competing arguments by autonomously assessing their relative merits and limits. On the other hand, the bulk of the course will consist in the analysis of philosophical arguments - of their premises and their internal structure - and, during both their individual presentations and class discussions, students will be required to critically examine the arguments at stake, thus enhancing their capacity to autonomously judge their validity.
Communication:
Through individual presentations and class discussions, students are expected to strengthen their communication skills. Indeed, they will be required to summarize complex arguments in a clear and effective way, and they are expected to actively take part in discussions, by proposing critical insights on the topics under scrutiny and by engaging with arguments proposed by their classmates.
Students are expected to acquire in-depth knowledge and clear understanding about the controversial questions concerning political legitimacy in societies characterized by the presence of conflicting claims and moral views. Students are also expected to acquire familiarity with the relevant criteria to examine different forms of conflict or disagreement and to critically assess their implications, on the one hand, and with different conceptions of political obligation and political legitimacy, on the other.
Applying knowledge and understanding:
At the end of the course, students are expected to be able to apply their acquired knowledge and competences about the philosophical reflection to issues animating public debates. To this end, the course offers several occasions for in-depth class discussion, which will provide a suitable space for debating the relevance and import of the philosophical notions and approaches under examination with respect to more concrete issues and questions. Moreover, during classes, the theoretical notions and models under investigations will be illustrated through references to actual cases of political conflict and to situations that call into question the notion of political legitimacy. This will enable students to better appreciate the relevance of the philosophical arguments addressed by the course for tackling specific problems and addressing controversial public questions.
Making judgements:
The structure of the course and the selected readings is expected to increase students' propensity for autonomous judgment. On the one hand, the course will address essays providing opposite arguments concerning, for instance, the role of conflict in politics or the strategies to manage it and defending different conceptions of political legitimacy and political obligation. Students will be therefore introduced to a plurality of perspectives and this is expected to improve their capacity to adjudicate among competing arguments by autonomously assessing their relative merits and limits. On the other hand, the bulk of the course will consist in the analysis of philosophical arguments - of their premises and their internal structure - and, during both their individual presentations and class discussions, students will be required to critically examine the arguments at stake, thus enhancing their capacity to autonomously judge their validity.
Communication:
Through individual presentations and class discussions, students are expected to strengthen their communication skills. Indeed, they will be required to summarize complex arguments in a clear and effective way, and they are expected to actively take part in discussions, by proposing critical insights on the topics under scrutiny and by engaging with arguments proposed by their classmates.
Lesson period: Second trimester
Assessment methods: Esame
Assessment result: voto verbalizzato in trentesimi
Single course
This course cannot be attended as a single course. Please check our list of single courses to find the ones available for enrolment.
Course syllabus and organization
Single session
Responsible
Lesson period
Second trimester
Prerequisites for admission
No specific preliminary knowledge is required to fruitfully attend the course or take the exam.
Assessment methods and Criteria
The exam structure is different for 1. attendant and 2. non-attendant students.
1. Attendant students
The course is divided into two units, each one providing a separate evaluation.
For each unit, attendant students will be assessed on the basis of their class participation and presentations, and they will be required to deliver an in-class written test at the end of the course.
Participation is assessed by taking into account students' contribution to class discussion. The evaluation is meant to ascertain the acquisition of argumentative skills apt to effectively engage in discussion about the topics at stake and about the assigned readings, to autonomously assess the validity of the arguments under examination, to challenge or defend them on the basis of appropriate reasons, and to propose insights for further reflection.
For what regards presentations, students will be required to summarize and discuss the central arguments proposed in the assigned readings. The evaluation is intended to ascertain students' capacity to identify the relevant points of the texts under scrutiny, to reconstruct their argumentative structure and their conclusions. The evaluation is also meant to assess students' capacity to assess the internal coherence of the arguments at stake, to enlighten and critically examine their implications.
The written test comprises open questions, which are meant to ascertain the acquisition of appropriate knowledge and understanding of the topics addressed in class and of the reading assignments. The written test is also meant to ascertain students' ability to establish connections between the various topics covered by the course and to comparatively assess different approaches and arguments.
Final grades for each unit will be awarded by weighting participation, presentation and written test as follows:
- Participation: 25 %
- Presentation: 35 %
- Written test: 40 %
The two units of the course contribute equally to the final evaluation.
Marks will be officially registered only after students achieve positive evaluation for both the two units of the course.
2. Non-attendant students
The course is divided into two units, each one providing a separate evaluation.
For each unit, the exam for non-attendant students is divided into two parts: a written test and an oral exam (provided the written test is passed).
The written test comprises open questions, which are meant to ascertain the acquisition of appropriate knowledge and understanding of the topics addressed in the assigned readings. More precisely, the written test is meant to assess students' familiarity with the basic notions and the theoretical approaches addressed in the relevant material. The written test is intended to ascertain also students' capacity to establish meaningful connections among the different topics covered by the assigned readings and to comparatively assess different approaches and arguments.
The oral exam consists in a critical discussion of the reading assignments selected be by the students. The oral exam is meant to ascertain students' capacity to summarize the main points of the selected texts, to autonomously assess the validity of the arguments under examination, to challenge or defend them on the basis of appropriate reasons.
The written test and the oral exam contribute to the final mark for each unit each for 50%.
The two units of the course contribute equally to the final evaluation.
Marks will be officially registered only after students achieve positive evaluation for both the two units of the course.
1. Attendant students
The course is divided into two units, each one providing a separate evaluation.
For each unit, attendant students will be assessed on the basis of their class participation and presentations, and they will be required to deliver an in-class written test at the end of the course.
Participation is assessed by taking into account students' contribution to class discussion. The evaluation is meant to ascertain the acquisition of argumentative skills apt to effectively engage in discussion about the topics at stake and about the assigned readings, to autonomously assess the validity of the arguments under examination, to challenge or defend them on the basis of appropriate reasons, and to propose insights for further reflection.
For what regards presentations, students will be required to summarize and discuss the central arguments proposed in the assigned readings. The evaluation is intended to ascertain students' capacity to identify the relevant points of the texts under scrutiny, to reconstruct their argumentative structure and their conclusions. The evaluation is also meant to assess students' capacity to assess the internal coherence of the arguments at stake, to enlighten and critically examine their implications.
The written test comprises open questions, which are meant to ascertain the acquisition of appropriate knowledge and understanding of the topics addressed in class and of the reading assignments. The written test is also meant to ascertain students' ability to establish connections between the various topics covered by the course and to comparatively assess different approaches and arguments.
Final grades for each unit will be awarded by weighting participation, presentation and written test as follows:
- Participation: 25 %
- Presentation: 35 %
- Written test: 40 %
The two units of the course contribute equally to the final evaluation.
Marks will be officially registered only after students achieve positive evaluation for both the two units of the course.
2. Non-attendant students
The course is divided into two units, each one providing a separate evaluation.
For each unit, the exam for non-attendant students is divided into two parts: a written test and an oral exam (provided the written test is passed).
The written test comprises open questions, which are meant to ascertain the acquisition of appropriate knowledge and understanding of the topics addressed in the assigned readings. More precisely, the written test is meant to assess students' familiarity with the basic notions and the theoretical approaches addressed in the relevant material. The written test is intended to ascertain also students' capacity to establish meaningful connections among the different topics covered by the assigned readings and to comparatively assess different approaches and arguments.
The oral exam consists in a critical discussion of the reading assignments selected be by the students. The oral exam is meant to ascertain students' capacity to summarize the main points of the selected texts, to autonomously assess the validity of the arguments under examination, to challenge or defend them on the basis of appropriate reasons.
The written test and the oral exam contribute to the final mark for each unit each for 50%.
The two units of the course contribute equally to the final evaluation.
Marks will be officially registered only after students achieve positive evaluation for both the two units of the course.
Unit 1
Course syllabus
The first unit of the course focuses on conflict and on its relevance for both politics and political philosophy.
After a preliminary analysis about the notion of conflict, the course examines the sources of conflict, by paying particular attention to conflicts generated by competing interests, on the one hand, and conflicts that can be traced back to incompatible moral commitments, on the other. The analysis is meant to provide insights about the specificity of the challenges and of the normative implications connected to conflicts triggered by different factors.
The course also emphasizes the implications connected to understanding conflict as the main constitutive feature of the political domain. Similar conceptions of politics invite to question whether conflict should be conceived, not just as a necessary characteristic of the political sphere, but also as a valuable element to be preserved or, alternatively, as a disruptive element to be tamed and kept under control. To better enlighten what is at stake, the course examines and comparatively assess different approaches and strategies to deal with conflict. More precisely, the analysis will focus on approaches that intend to emphasize and vindicate the agonistic character of politics, on approaches aimed at neutralizing the most unsettling effects of conflict, and on approaches that, acknowledging the inevitability of conflict, propose strategies to cope with specific instances of conflict or to establish peaceful forms of coexistence despite conflict.
Moreover, the course provides a frame to distinguish different forms of conflict, considering, on the one hand, whether the confrontation among conflicting perspectives remains within the boundaries of institutionalized political practices or not; and, on the other hand, when similar boundaries are transcended, whether conflict expresses itself through violence or not. Such an investigations is meant to provide insights to normatively assess whether, to prove acceptable and fruitful, conflict must respect certain constraints and to discuss which constraints are relevant.
Syllabus (provisional)
Lecture 1 - Conflict, politics and political philosophy
Lecture 2 - Competing interests and conflict
Lecture 3 - Students' presentations and class discussion
Lecture 4 - Pluralism and disagreement
Lecture 5 - Students' presentations and class discussion
Lecture 6 - Politics as conflict
Lecture 7 - Students' presentations and class discussion
Lecture 8 - Conflict as a value?
Lecture 9 - Students' presentations and class discussion
Lecture 10 - Managing conflict: fairness, deliberation and agonism
Lecture 11 - Students' presentations and class discussion
Lecture 12 - Impartiality, partisanship and conflict
Lecture 13 - Students' presentations and class discussion
Lecture 14 - Political dissent
Lecture 15 - Students' presentations and class discussion
Lecture 16 - Conflict and violence
Lecture 17 - Students' presentations and class discussion
Lecture 18 - Politics without conflict: utopia or dystopia?
Lecture 19 - Students' presentations and class discussion
Lecture 20 - Recap lecture
After a preliminary analysis about the notion of conflict, the course examines the sources of conflict, by paying particular attention to conflicts generated by competing interests, on the one hand, and conflicts that can be traced back to incompatible moral commitments, on the other. The analysis is meant to provide insights about the specificity of the challenges and of the normative implications connected to conflicts triggered by different factors.
The course also emphasizes the implications connected to understanding conflict as the main constitutive feature of the political domain. Similar conceptions of politics invite to question whether conflict should be conceived, not just as a necessary characteristic of the political sphere, but also as a valuable element to be preserved or, alternatively, as a disruptive element to be tamed and kept under control. To better enlighten what is at stake, the course examines and comparatively assess different approaches and strategies to deal with conflict. More precisely, the analysis will focus on approaches that intend to emphasize and vindicate the agonistic character of politics, on approaches aimed at neutralizing the most unsettling effects of conflict, and on approaches that, acknowledging the inevitability of conflict, propose strategies to cope with specific instances of conflict or to establish peaceful forms of coexistence despite conflict.
Moreover, the course provides a frame to distinguish different forms of conflict, considering, on the one hand, whether the confrontation among conflicting perspectives remains within the boundaries of institutionalized political practices or not; and, on the other hand, when similar boundaries are transcended, whether conflict expresses itself through violence or not. Such an investigations is meant to provide insights to normatively assess whether, to prove acceptable and fruitful, conflict must respect certain constraints and to discuss which constraints are relevant.
Syllabus (provisional)
Lecture 1 - Conflict, politics and political philosophy
Lecture 2 - Competing interests and conflict
Lecture 3 - Students' presentations and class discussion
Lecture 4 - Pluralism and disagreement
Lecture 5 - Students' presentations and class discussion
Lecture 6 - Politics as conflict
Lecture 7 - Students' presentations and class discussion
Lecture 8 - Conflict as a value?
Lecture 9 - Students' presentations and class discussion
Lecture 10 - Managing conflict: fairness, deliberation and agonism
Lecture 11 - Students' presentations and class discussion
Lecture 12 - Impartiality, partisanship and conflict
Lecture 13 - Students' presentations and class discussion
Lecture 14 - Political dissent
Lecture 15 - Students' presentations and class discussion
Lecture 16 - Conflict and violence
Lecture 17 - Students' presentations and class discussion
Lecture 18 - Politics without conflict: utopia or dystopia?
Lecture 19 - Students' presentations and class discussion
Lecture 20 - Recap lecture
Teaching methods
The course combines lessons, students' presentations, and class discussion.
Teaching Resources
The exam material is different for 1. attendant students and 2. non-attendant students
1. Attendant students
For attendant students, the exam material organized with reference to the topics included in the syllabus. Readings are indeed expected to be completed in advance of the relevant session devoted to presentations and class-discussion.
· Conflict, politics and political philosophy
‒ Lukes, S. (1989), "Making sense of moral conflict", in N.L. Rosenblum (ed.), Liberalism and the moral life, Harvard University Press, pp. 127-142.
· Competing interests and conflict
‒ Hobbes, T. (1651), Leviathan, excerpts.
‒ Gauthier, D. (1986), Morals by agreement, Oxford: Oxford University Press, excerpts.
· Pluralism and disagreement
‒ Berlin, I. (2002), Liberty, Oxford University Press, excerpts.
‒ Larmore, C. (1994), "Pluralism and reasonable disagreement", Social Philosophy and Policy, 11(1): 61-79.
‒ Gray, J. (1998), "Where pluralists and liberals part company", International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 6(1): 17-36.
· Politics as conflict
‒ Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1848), The Communist Manifest, excerpts
‒ Schmitt, C. (1932), The concept of the political, excerpts
· Conflict as a value?
‒ Machiavelli, N. (1531), Discourses on the first ten books of Titus Livy, Book I, Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 37.
‒ Machiavelli, N. (1525), Florentine Histories, Book III, chapter 1.
‒ Mouffe, C. (2013), Agonistics. Thinking the world politically, Verso, excerpts.
‒ Honig, B. (1993), Political theory and the displacement politics, Cornell University Press, excerpts.
· Managing conflict: fairness, deliberation and agonism
‒ Hampshire, S. (1996), "Justice is conflict", Tanner lectures on human values.
‒ Gutman, A. and Thompson, D. (1990), "Moral conflict and political consensus", Ethics, 101(1): 64-88.
‒ Mouffe, C. (1994), "Political liberalism. Neutrality and the political", Ratio Juris, 7(3): 314-324.
· Impartiality, partisanship and conflict
‒ Mansbridge, J. et al. (2010), "The place of self‐interest and the role of power in deliberative democracy", Journal of political philosophy, 18(1): 64-100.
‒ Rosenblum, N.L. (2008), On the side of angels. An appreciation of parties and partisanship, Princeton University Press, excerpts.
‒ White, J. and Ypi, L. (2016), The meaning of partisanship, Oxford University Press, excerpts.
‒ Rivera, L. (2009), "Ethical reasons and political commitments", in L. Tessman (ed.), Feminist ethics and social and political philosophy, Springer.
· Political dissent
‒ Thoreau, D. (1849), Civil disobedience
‒ Lyons, D. (1998), "Moral judgment, historical reality, and civil disobedience", Philosophy & Public Affairs, 27(1): 31-49.
‒ Celikates, R. (2016), "Democratizing civil disobedience", Philosophy & Social Criticism, 42(10): 982-994.
· Conflict and violence
‒ Arendt, H. (1970), On violence, Harcourt, excerpts.
‒ Delmas, C. (2018), A duty to resist: When disobedience should be uncivil. Oxford University Press, excerpts.
‒ Coady, C.A.J. (2008), "The morality of terrorism", in Morality and political violence, Cambridge University Press, pp. 154-178
· Politics without conflict: utopia or dystopia?
‒ Berlin, I. (1988), "The pursuit of the ideal", in The crooked timber of humanity: Chapters in the history of ideas, Oxford University Press, pp. 1-19.
‒ Nozick, R. (1974), "A Framework for Utopia", in Anarchy, State and Utopia, Basic Books.
For attendant students, the material for the written test includes all reading assignments listed above plus the slides with the lecture notes, which will be available on the Ariel website of the course.
Please note: Readings which are difficult to find will be available on the Ariel website of the course.
2. Non-attendant students
· Material for the written test
The written test for non-attendant students will focus on the following reading assignments:
‒ Lukes, S. (1989), "Making sense of moral conflict", in N.L. Rosenblum (ed.), Liberalism and the moral life, Harvard University Press, pp. 127-142.
‒ Hobbes, T. (1651), Leviathan, excerpts.
‒ Gauthier, D. (1986), Morals by agreement, Oxford: Oxford University Press, excerpts.
‒ R. Chang, "Value pluralism", in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences.
‒ Ceva, E. (2012), "Pluralism", in A. Besussi (ed.), A companion to poltical philosophy. Methods, tools, topics, Ashgate, pp. 195-205.
‒ Wong, "Agreement/disagreement", in A. Besussi (ed.), A companion to poltical philosophy. Methods, tools, topics, Ashgate, pp. 217-226.
‒ Berlin, I. (2002), Liberty, Oxford University Press, excerpts.
‒ Larmore, C. (1994), "Pluralism and reasonable disagreement", Social Philosophy and Policy, 11(1): 61-79.
‒ Gray, J. (1998), "Where pluralists and liberals part company", International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 6(1): 17-36.
‒ Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1848), The Communist Manifest, excerpts
‒ Schmitt, C. (1932), The concept of the political, excerpts
‒ Machiavelli, N. (1531), Discourses on the first ten books of Titus Livy, Book I, Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 37.
‒ Machiavelli, N. (1525), Florentine Histories, Book III, chapter 1.
‒ Mouffe, C. (2013), Agonistics. Thinking the world politically, Verso, excerpts.Honig, B. (1993), Political theory and the displacement politics, Cornell University Press, excerpts.
‒ Hampshire, S. (1996), "Justice is conflict", Tanner lectures on human values.
‒ Gutman, A. and Thompson, D. (1990), "Moral conflict and political consensus", Ethics, 101(1): 64-88.
‒ Mouffe, C. (1994), "Political liberalism. Neutrality and the political", Ratio Juris, 7(3): 314-324.
· Material for the oral exam
The oral exam for non-attendant students will focus on 3 readings freely selected by each student from the following list:
‒ Mansbridge, J. et al. (2010), "The place of self‐interest and the role of power in deliberative democracy", Journal of political philosophy, 18(1): 64-100.
‒ Rosenblum, N.L. (2008), On the side of angels. An appreciation of parties and partisanship, Princeton University Press, excerpts.
‒ White, J. and Ypi, L. (2016), The meaning of partisanship, Oxford University Press, excerpts.
‒ Rivera, L. (2009), "Ethical reasons and political commitments", in L. Tessman (ed.), Feminist ethics and social and political philosophy, Springer.
‒ Thoreau, D. (1849), Civil disobedience
‒ Lyons, D. (1998), "Moral judgment, historical reality, and civil disobedience", Philosophy & Public Affairs, 27(1): 31-49.
‒ Celikates, R. (2016), "Democratizing civil disobedience", Philosophy & Social Criticism, 42(10): 982-994.
‒ Arendt, H. (1970), On violence, Harcourt, excerpts
‒ Delmas, C. (2018), A duty to resist: When disobedience should be uncivil. Oxford University Press, excerpts.
‒ Coady, C.A.J. (2008), "The morality of terrorism", in Morality and political violence, Cambridge University Press, pp. 154-178
‒ Berlin, I. (1988), "The pursuit of the ideal", in The crooked timber of humanity: Chapters in the history of ideas, Oxford University Press, pp. 1-19.
Please note: Readings which are difficult to find will be available on the Ariel website of the course.
1. Attendant students
For attendant students, the exam material organized with reference to the topics included in the syllabus. Readings are indeed expected to be completed in advance of the relevant session devoted to presentations and class-discussion.
· Conflict, politics and political philosophy
‒ Lukes, S. (1989), "Making sense of moral conflict", in N.L. Rosenblum (ed.), Liberalism and the moral life, Harvard University Press, pp. 127-142.
· Competing interests and conflict
‒ Hobbes, T. (1651), Leviathan, excerpts.
‒ Gauthier, D. (1986), Morals by agreement, Oxford: Oxford University Press, excerpts.
· Pluralism and disagreement
‒ Berlin, I. (2002), Liberty, Oxford University Press, excerpts.
‒ Larmore, C. (1994), "Pluralism and reasonable disagreement", Social Philosophy and Policy, 11(1): 61-79.
‒ Gray, J. (1998), "Where pluralists and liberals part company", International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 6(1): 17-36.
· Politics as conflict
‒ Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1848), The Communist Manifest, excerpts
‒ Schmitt, C. (1932), The concept of the political, excerpts
· Conflict as a value?
‒ Machiavelli, N. (1531), Discourses on the first ten books of Titus Livy, Book I, Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 37.
‒ Machiavelli, N. (1525), Florentine Histories, Book III, chapter 1.
‒ Mouffe, C. (2013), Agonistics. Thinking the world politically, Verso, excerpts.
‒ Honig, B. (1993), Political theory and the displacement politics, Cornell University Press, excerpts.
· Managing conflict: fairness, deliberation and agonism
‒ Hampshire, S. (1996), "Justice is conflict", Tanner lectures on human values.
‒ Gutman, A. and Thompson, D. (1990), "Moral conflict and political consensus", Ethics, 101(1): 64-88.
‒ Mouffe, C. (1994), "Political liberalism. Neutrality and the political", Ratio Juris, 7(3): 314-324.
· Impartiality, partisanship and conflict
‒ Mansbridge, J. et al. (2010), "The place of self‐interest and the role of power in deliberative democracy", Journal of political philosophy, 18(1): 64-100.
‒ Rosenblum, N.L. (2008), On the side of angels. An appreciation of parties and partisanship, Princeton University Press, excerpts.
‒ White, J. and Ypi, L. (2016), The meaning of partisanship, Oxford University Press, excerpts.
‒ Rivera, L. (2009), "Ethical reasons and political commitments", in L. Tessman (ed.), Feminist ethics and social and political philosophy, Springer.
· Political dissent
‒ Thoreau, D. (1849), Civil disobedience
‒ Lyons, D. (1998), "Moral judgment, historical reality, and civil disobedience", Philosophy & Public Affairs, 27(1): 31-49.
‒ Celikates, R. (2016), "Democratizing civil disobedience", Philosophy & Social Criticism, 42(10): 982-994.
· Conflict and violence
‒ Arendt, H. (1970), On violence, Harcourt, excerpts.
‒ Delmas, C. (2018), A duty to resist: When disobedience should be uncivil. Oxford University Press, excerpts.
‒ Coady, C.A.J. (2008), "The morality of terrorism", in Morality and political violence, Cambridge University Press, pp. 154-178
· Politics without conflict: utopia or dystopia?
‒ Berlin, I. (1988), "The pursuit of the ideal", in The crooked timber of humanity: Chapters in the history of ideas, Oxford University Press, pp. 1-19.
‒ Nozick, R. (1974), "A Framework for Utopia", in Anarchy, State and Utopia, Basic Books.
For attendant students, the material for the written test includes all reading assignments listed above plus the slides with the lecture notes, which will be available on the Ariel website of the course.
Please note: Readings which are difficult to find will be available on the Ariel website of the course.
2. Non-attendant students
· Material for the written test
The written test for non-attendant students will focus on the following reading assignments:
‒ Lukes, S. (1989), "Making sense of moral conflict", in N.L. Rosenblum (ed.), Liberalism and the moral life, Harvard University Press, pp. 127-142.
‒ Hobbes, T. (1651), Leviathan, excerpts.
‒ Gauthier, D. (1986), Morals by agreement, Oxford: Oxford University Press, excerpts.
‒ R. Chang, "Value pluralism", in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences.
‒ Ceva, E. (2012), "Pluralism", in A. Besussi (ed.), A companion to poltical philosophy. Methods, tools, topics, Ashgate, pp. 195-205.
‒ Wong, "Agreement/disagreement", in A. Besussi (ed.), A companion to poltical philosophy. Methods, tools, topics, Ashgate, pp. 217-226.
‒ Berlin, I. (2002), Liberty, Oxford University Press, excerpts.
‒ Larmore, C. (1994), "Pluralism and reasonable disagreement", Social Philosophy and Policy, 11(1): 61-79.
‒ Gray, J. (1998), "Where pluralists and liberals part company", International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 6(1): 17-36.
‒ Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1848), The Communist Manifest, excerpts
‒ Schmitt, C. (1932), The concept of the political, excerpts
‒ Machiavelli, N. (1531), Discourses on the first ten books of Titus Livy, Book I, Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 37.
‒ Machiavelli, N. (1525), Florentine Histories, Book III, chapter 1.
‒ Mouffe, C. (2013), Agonistics. Thinking the world politically, Verso, excerpts.Honig, B. (1993), Political theory and the displacement politics, Cornell University Press, excerpts.
‒ Hampshire, S. (1996), "Justice is conflict", Tanner lectures on human values.
‒ Gutman, A. and Thompson, D. (1990), "Moral conflict and political consensus", Ethics, 101(1): 64-88.
‒ Mouffe, C. (1994), "Political liberalism. Neutrality and the political", Ratio Juris, 7(3): 314-324.
· Material for the oral exam
The oral exam for non-attendant students will focus on 3 readings freely selected by each student from the following list:
‒ Mansbridge, J. et al. (2010), "The place of self‐interest and the role of power in deliberative democracy", Journal of political philosophy, 18(1): 64-100.
‒ Rosenblum, N.L. (2008), On the side of angels. An appreciation of parties and partisanship, Princeton University Press, excerpts.
‒ White, J. and Ypi, L. (2016), The meaning of partisanship, Oxford University Press, excerpts.
‒ Rivera, L. (2009), "Ethical reasons and political commitments", in L. Tessman (ed.), Feminist ethics and social and political philosophy, Springer.
‒ Thoreau, D. (1849), Civil disobedience
‒ Lyons, D. (1998), "Moral judgment, historical reality, and civil disobedience", Philosophy & Public Affairs, 27(1): 31-49.
‒ Celikates, R. (2016), "Democratizing civil disobedience", Philosophy & Social Criticism, 42(10): 982-994.
‒ Arendt, H. (1970), On violence, Harcourt, excerpts
‒ Delmas, C. (2018), A duty to resist: When disobedience should be uncivil. Oxford University Press, excerpts.
‒ Coady, C.A.J. (2008), "The morality of terrorism", in Morality and political violence, Cambridge University Press, pp. 154-178
‒ Berlin, I. (1988), "The pursuit of the ideal", in The crooked timber of humanity: Chapters in the history of ideas, Oxford University Press, pp. 1-19.
Please note: Readings which are difficult to find will be available on the Ariel website of the course.
Unit 2
Course syllabus
The second part of the course focuses on political legitimacy.
After a preliminary analysis about the notion of legitimacy, the course examines the relationship between legitimacy and authority as the normative concept of political legitimacy is often seen as related to the justification of authority. Indeed, the main function of political legitimacy is to explain the difference between merely effective or de facto authority and legitimate authority. The analysis is also meant to provide insights about the issue of obedience to political authority from both moral and political perspective as - in the normative interpretation here propounded - legitimate political authority entails political obligations.
Insofar as legitimacy defines which political institutions and which decisions made within them are acceptable, and, in some cases, what kind of obligations people who are governed by these institutions incur, there is the question what grounds the normative notion of legitimacy. To deal with such a question, this unit offers a review of classical and contemporary accounts that have been given of the sources of legitimacy. Among these accounts the unit will be focusing on the following: consent; consequences; public reason; democracy. In conclusion, some reflections are devoted to global crisis and migration.
Syllabus
Lecture 1 - Political legitimacy: meanings and sources
Lecture 2 - Authority and political obligation
Lecture 3 - Political legitimacy: universalist standards and contextual approaches
Lecture 4 - Sources of political legitimacy: idealist to realist accounts
Lecture 5 - Students' presentations and class discussion
Lecture 6 - Consent: Hobbes to Kant
Lecture 7 - Students' presentations and class discussion
Lecture 8 - Consequentialist source of legitimacy: Mill to Raz
Lecture 9 - Students' presentations and class discussion
Lecture 10 - Public reason's approaches to political legitimacy: Rawls
Lecture 11 - Students' presentations and class discussion
Lecture 12 - Public reason's approaches to political legitimacy: after Rawls and against
Lecture 13 - Students' presentations and class discussion
Lecture 14 - Democratic legitimacy: meanings and forms
Lecture 15 - Students' presentations and class discussion
Lecture 16 - Beyond democratic legitimacy: the epistocratic alternative
Lecture 17 - Students' presentations and class discussion
Lecture 18 - Rethinking political legitimacy in times of global crisis and migration
Lecture 19 - Students' presentations and class discussion
Lecture 20 - Recap lecture
After a preliminary analysis about the notion of legitimacy, the course examines the relationship between legitimacy and authority as the normative concept of political legitimacy is often seen as related to the justification of authority. Indeed, the main function of political legitimacy is to explain the difference between merely effective or de facto authority and legitimate authority. The analysis is also meant to provide insights about the issue of obedience to political authority from both moral and political perspective as - in the normative interpretation here propounded - legitimate political authority entails political obligations.
Insofar as legitimacy defines which political institutions and which decisions made within them are acceptable, and, in some cases, what kind of obligations people who are governed by these institutions incur, there is the question what grounds the normative notion of legitimacy. To deal with such a question, this unit offers a review of classical and contemporary accounts that have been given of the sources of legitimacy. Among these accounts the unit will be focusing on the following: consent; consequences; public reason; democracy. In conclusion, some reflections are devoted to global crisis and migration.
Syllabus
Lecture 1 - Political legitimacy: meanings and sources
Lecture 2 - Authority and political obligation
Lecture 3 - Political legitimacy: universalist standards and contextual approaches
Lecture 4 - Sources of political legitimacy: idealist to realist accounts
Lecture 5 - Students' presentations and class discussion
Lecture 6 - Consent: Hobbes to Kant
Lecture 7 - Students' presentations and class discussion
Lecture 8 - Consequentialist source of legitimacy: Mill to Raz
Lecture 9 - Students' presentations and class discussion
Lecture 10 - Public reason's approaches to political legitimacy: Rawls
Lecture 11 - Students' presentations and class discussion
Lecture 12 - Public reason's approaches to political legitimacy: after Rawls and against
Lecture 13 - Students' presentations and class discussion
Lecture 14 - Democratic legitimacy: meanings and forms
Lecture 15 - Students' presentations and class discussion
Lecture 16 - Beyond democratic legitimacy: the epistocratic alternative
Lecture 17 - Students' presentations and class discussion
Lecture 18 - Rethinking political legitimacy in times of global crisis and migration
Lecture 19 - Students' presentations and class discussion
Lecture 20 - Recap lecture
Teaching methods
The course combines lessons, students' presentations, and class discussion.
Teaching Resources
The exam material is different for 1. attendant students and 2. non-attendant students
1. Attendant students
For attendant students, the exam material organized with reference to the topics included in the syllabus.
· Lecture 1 - Political legitimacy: meanings and sources
- Beetham D., The Legitimation of Power, 1991: Chapters 1-3
- Simmons J., Justification and Legitimacy, 2000: Chapters 1, 2, 4, 5
· Lecture 2 - Authority and political obligation
- Gilbert M., A Theory of Political Obligation, 2006: Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
- Horton J., Political Obligation, 1992: Chapters 2, 3, 4, 6
· Lecture 3 - Political legitimacy: universalist standards and contextual approaches
- Lægaard S., 2016, Contextualism in Normative Political Theory. in WR Thompson (ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, Oxford Research Encyclopedias. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.87
- Miller D., Political Philosophy for Earthlings, in Political Theory: Methods and Approaches (eds. Leopold and Stears), 2008
· Lecture 4 - Sources of political legitimacy: idealist to realist accounts
- Williams B., In the Beginning Was the Deed, 2005: Chapter 1
- Erman E., Moller N., Political Legitimacy in the Real Normative World, 2015
- Sleat M., Legitimacy in Realist Thought: Between Moralism and Realpolitik, 2014
· Lecture 5 - Students' presentations and class discussion
- See references of Lectures 3 & 4
· Lecture 6 & 7 - Consent: Hobbes to Kant
- Hobbes T., Leviathan [1651]: Chapters XIV, XVII
- Locke J., Second Treatise on Government [1689]: Chapters VII.87-XIV
- Rousseau J.-J., Social Contract [1762]: Chapters IV-IX
- Kant I., The Doctrine of Right in Metaphysics of Morals [1797]: § 47-49, General Remark On the Effect with Regard to Rights
· Lecture 8 & 9 - Consequentialist source of legitimacy: Mill to Raz
- Mill J. S., On Liberty [1859]: Introductory, Chapter 3
- Raz J., Authority and Justification, 1985
- Raz J., The Problem of Authority: Revisiting the Service Conception, 2006
· Lecture 10 & 11 - Public reason's approaches to political legitimacy: Rawls
- Rawls J., A Theory of Justice, 1971: Chapters I. 2, I. 4
- Rawls J., Political Liberalism, 1993: Lecture 4
- Rawls J., The Idea of Public Reason Revised, 1997
· Lecture 12 & 13 - Approaches to political legitimacy: after Rawls and against
- Walzer M., Spheres of Justice, Preface
- Gaus G., Justificatory Liberalism, 1996: Introductory, Chapters 12.1, 12.2, 12.5, 13.2, 17
- Newey G., After Politics, 2001: Chapters 7, 8
· Lecture 14 & 15 - Democratic legitimacy: meanings and forms
- Buchanan A., Political Legitimacy and Democracy, 2002
- Christiano T., The Constitution of Equality, 2008: Chapters 6, 7
· Lecture 16 & 17 - Beyond democratic legitimacy: the epistocratic alternative
- Estlund D., Democratic Authority, 2009: Chapter 1
- Urbinati N., Democracy Disfigured, 2014: Chapter 2
- Pettit P., Depoliticizing Democracy, 2004
· Lecture 18 & 19 - Rethinking political legitimacy in times of global crisis and migration
- Nagel T., The Problem of Global Justice, 2005
- Dryzek J., Transnational Democracy, 1999
- Ferrara A., Democratic Horizon, 2014: Introduction, Chapter 8
For attendant students, the material for the written test includes all reading assignments listed above plus the slides with the lecture notes, which will be available on the Ariel website of the course.
Please note: Readings which are difficult to find will be available on the Ariel website of the course.
2. Non-attendant students
· Material for the written test:
The written test for non-attendant students will focus on the following reading assignments:
- Beetham D., The Legitimation of Power, 1991: Chapters 1-3
- Simmons J., Justification and Legitimacy, 2000: Chapters 1, 2, 4, 5, 7
- Gilbert M., A Theory of Political Obligation, 2006: Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
- Horton J., Political Obligation, 1992: Chapters 2, 3, 4, 6
- Lægaard S., 2016, Contextualism in Normative Political Theory. in WR Thompson (ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, Oxford Research Encyclopedias. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.87
- Miller D., Political Philosophy for Earthlings, in Political Theory: Methods and Approaches (eds. Leopold and Stears), 2008
- Williams B., In the Beginning Was the Deed, 2005: Chapter 1
- Erman E., Moller N., Political Legitimacy in the Real Normative World, 2015
- Sleat M., Legitimacy in Realist Thought: Between Moralism and Realpolitik, 2014
- Beran H., The Consent Theory of Political Obligation, 1987
- Hobbes T., Leviathan [1651]: Chapters XIV, XVII
- Locke J., Second Treatise on Government [1689]: Chapters VII.87-XIV
- Beran H., The Consent Theory of Political Obligation, 1987
- Mill J. S., On Liberty [1859]: Introductory, Chapter 3
- Raz J., Authority and Justification, 1985
- Rawls J., A Theory of Justice, 1971: Chapters I. 2, I. 4
- Rawls J., Political Liberalism, 1993: Lecture 4
- Rawls J., The Idea of Public Reason Revised, 1997
- Walzer M., Spheres of Justice, Preface
- Gaus G., Justificatory Liberalism, 1996: Introductory, Chapters 12.1, 12.2, 12.5, 13.2, 17
- Newey G., After Politics, 2001: Chapters 7, 8
- Buchanan A., Political Legitimacy and Democracy, 2002
- Christiano T., The Constitution of Equality, 2008: Chapters 6, 7
- Estlund D. Democratic Authority, 2009: Chapter 1
- Urbinati N., Democracy Disfigured, 2014: Chapter 2
- Pettit P., Depoliticizing Democracy, 2004
· Material for the oral exam:
The oral exam for non-attendant students will focus on 3 readings freely selected by each student from the following list:
- Stilz A., Liberal Loyalty, 2009: Chapters 3, 4
- Cooke M., Between 'Objectivism' and 'Contextualism': Normative Foundations of Social Philosophy, 2000
- Modood T., Thompson S., Revisiting Contextualism in Political Theory: Putting Principles into Context, 2017
- Valentini L., The Content-Independence of Political Obligation, 2018
- Chambers S., Theories of Political Justification, 2010
- Jubb R., Realism, in Methods in Analytical Political Theory (eds. A. Blau), 2017
- Mill J. S, Considerations on Representative Government, [1861]: Chapter II
- Walzer M., Interpretation and Social Criticism, 1985
- Enoch D., Against Public Reason, 2015
- Horton J., Political Legitimacy, Justice and Consent, 2012
- Buck R., Religion, Identity, and Political Legitimacy: Toward Democratic Inclusion, 2008
- Cohen J., An Epistemic Conception of Democracy, 1986
- Gerlsbeck F., What is Democratic Reliability? Epistemic Theories of Democracy and the Problem of Reasonable Disagreement, 2018
- Parvin P., Democracy without Participation, 2018
- Zhu I., Farewell to Political Obligation, 2015
- Zuolo F., Realism and Idealism, in Companion to Political Philosophy, ed. Besussi, 2012
- Biale E. & Liveriero F., A Multidimensional Account of Democratic Legitimacy, 2017
- Manin B., Stein E., Mansbridge J., On Legitimacy and Political Deliberation, 1987
- Parkinson J., Problems of Legitimacy in Deliberative Democracy, 2006
Please note: Readings which are difficult to find will be available on the Ariel website of the course.
1. Attendant students
For attendant students, the exam material organized with reference to the topics included in the syllabus.
· Lecture 1 - Political legitimacy: meanings and sources
- Beetham D., The Legitimation of Power, 1991: Chapters 1-3
- Simmons J., Justification and Legitimacy, 2000: Chapters 1, 2, 4, 5
· Lecture 2 - Authority and political obligation
- Gilbert M., A Theory of Political Obligation, 2006: Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
- Horton J., Political Obligation, 1992: Chapters 2, 3, 4, 6
· Lecture 3 - Political legitimacy: universalist standards and contextual approaches
- Lægaard S., 2016, Contextualism in Normative Political Theory. in WR Thompson (ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, Oxford Research Encyclopedias. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.87
- Miller D., Political Philosophy for Earthlings, in Political Theory: Methods and Approaches (eds. Leopold and Stears), 2008
· Lecture 4 - Sources of political legitimacy: idealist to realist accounts
- Williams B., In the Beginning Was the Deed, 2005: Chapter 1
- Erman E., Moller N., Political Legitimacy in the Real Normative World, 2015
- Sleat M., Legitimacy in Realist Thought: Between Moralism and Realpolitik, 2014
· Lecture 5 - Students' presentations and class discussion
- See references of Lectures 3 & 4
· Lecture 6 & 7 - Consent: Hobbes to Kant
- Hobbes T., Leviathan [1651]: Chapters XIV, XVII
- Locke J., Second Treatise on Government [1689]: Chapters VII.87-XIV
- Rousseau J.-J., Social Contract [1762]: Chapters IV-IX
- Kant I., The Doctrine of Right in Metaphysics of Morals [1797]: § 47-49, General Remark On the Effect with Regard to Rights
· Lecture 8 & 9 - Consequentialist source of legitimacy: Mill to Raz
- Mill J. S., On Liberty [1859]: Introductory, Chapter 3
- Raz J., Authority and Justification, 1985
- Raz J., The Problem of Authority: Revisiting the Service Conception, 2006
· Lecture 10 & 11 - Public reason's approaches to political legitimacy: Rawls
- Rawls J., A Theory of Justice, 1971: Chapters I. 2, I. 4
- Rawls J., Political Liberalism, 1993: Lecture 4
- Rawls J., The Idea of Public Reason Revised, 1997
· Lecture 12 & 13 - Approaches to political legitimacy: after Rawls and against
- Walzer M., Spheres of Justice, Preface
- Gaus G., Justificatory Liberalism, 1996: Introductory, Chapters 12.1, 12.2, 12.5, 13.2, 17
- Newey G., After Politics, 2001: Chapters 7, 8
· Lecture 14 & 15 - Democratic legitimacy: meanings and forms
- Buchanan A., Political Legitimacy and Democracy, 2002
- Christiano T., The Constitution of Equality, 2008: Chapters 6, 7
· Lecture 16 & 17 - Beyond democratic legitimacy: the epistocratic alternative
- Estlund D., Democratic Authority, 2009: Chapter 1
- Urbinati N., Democracy Disfigured, 2014: Chapter 2
- Pettit P., Depoliticizing Democracy, 2004
· Lecture 18 & 19 - Rethinking political legitimacy in times of global crisis and migration
- Nagel T., The Problem of Global Justice, 2005
- Dryzek J., Transnational Democracy, 1999
- Ferrara A., Democratic Horizon, 2014: Introduction, Chapter 8
For attendant students, the material for the written test includes all reading assignments listed above plus the slides with the lecture notes, which will be available on the Ariel website of the course.
Please note: Readings which are difficult to find will be available on the Ariel website of the course.
2. Non-attendant students
· Material for the written test:
The written test for non-attendant students will focus on the following reading assignments:
- Beetham D., The Legitimation of Power, 1991: Chapters 1-3
- Simmons J., Justification and Legitimacy, 2000: Chapters 1, 2, 4, 5, 7
- Gilbert M., A Theory of Political Obligation, 2006: Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
- Horton J., Political Obligation, 1992: Chapters 2, 3, 4, 6
- Lægaard S., 2016, Contextualism in Normative Political Theory. in WR Thompson (ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, Oxford Research Encyclopedias. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.87
- Miller D., Political Philosophy for Earthlings, in Political Theory: Methods and Approaches (eds. Leopold and Stears), 2008
- Williams B., In the Beginning Was the Deed, 2005: Chapter 1
- Erman E., Moller N., Political Legitimacy in the Real Normative World, 2015
- Sleat M., Legitimacy in Realist Thought: Between Moralism and Realpolitik, 2014
- Beran H., The Consent Theory of Political Obligation, 1987
- Hobbes T., Leviathan [1651]: Chapters XIV, XVII
- Locke J., Second Treatise on Government [1689]: Chapters VII.87-XIV
- Beran H., The Consent Theory of Political Obligation, 1987
- Mill J. S., On Liberty [1859]: Introductory, Chapter 3
- Raz J., Authority and Justification, 1985
- Rawls J., A Theory of Justice, 1971: Chapters I. 2, I. 4
- Rawls J., Political Liberalism, 1993: Lecture 4
- Rawls J., The Idea of Public Reason Revised, 1997
- Walzer M., Spheres of Justice, Preface
- Gaus G., Justificatory Liberalism, 1996: Introductory, Chapters 12.1, 12.2, 12.5, 13.2, 17
- Newey G., After Politics, 2001: Chapters 7, 8
- Buchanan A., Political Legitimacy and Democracy, 2002
- Christiano T., The Constitution of Equality, 2008: Chapters 6, 7
- Estlund D. Democratic Authority, 2009: Chapter 1
- Urbinati N., Democracy Disfigured, 2014: Chapter 2
- Pettit P., Depoliticizing Democracy, 2004
· Material for the oral exam:
The oral exam for non-attendant students will focus on 3 readings freely selected by each student from the following list:
- Stilz A., Liberal Loyalty, 2009: Chapters 3, 4
- Cooke M., Between 'Objectivism' and 'Contextualism': Normative Foundations of Social Philosophy, 2000
- Modood T., Thompson S., Revisiting Contextualism in Political Theory: Putting Principles into Context, 2017
- Valentini L., The Content-Independence of Political Obligation, 2018
- Chambers S., Theories of Political Justification, 2010
- Jubb R., Realism, in Methods in Analytical Political Theory (eds. A. Blau), 2017
- Mill J. S, Considerations on Representative Government, [1861]: Chapter II
- Walzer M., Interpretation and Social Criticism, 1985
- Enoch D., Against Public Reason, 2015
- Horton J., Political Legitimacy, Justice and Consent, 2012
- Buck R., Religion, Identity, and Political Legitimacy: Toward Democratic Inclusion, 2008
- Cohen J., An Epistemic Conception of Democracy, 1986
- Gerlsbeck F., What is Democratic Reliability? Epistemic Theories of Democracy and the Problem of Reasonable Disagreement, 2018
- Parvin P., Democracy without Participation, 2018
- Zhu I., Farewell to Political Obligation, 2015
- Zuolo F., Realism and Idealism, in Companion to Political Philosophy, ed. Besussi, 2012
- Biale E. & Liveriero F., A Multidimensional Account of Democratic Legitimacy, 2017
- Manin B., Stein E., Mansbridge J., On Legitimacy and Political Deliberation, 1987
- Parkinson J., Problems of Legitimacy in Deliberative Democracy, 2006
Please note: Readings which are difficult to find will be available on the Ariel website of the course.
Unit 1
SPS/01 - POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY - University credits: 6
Lessons: 40 hours
Professor:
Pasquali Francesca
Shifts:
-
Professor:
Pasquali Francesca
Unit 2
SPS/01 - POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY - University credits: 6
Lessons: 40 hours
Professor:
Sala Roberta
Shifts:
-
Professor:
Sala RobertaProfessor(s)
Reception:
Upcoming office hours: Wednesday May 14th, 18:00-19:30, online and on campus; Tuesday May 20th, 14:30-16:00, online; Wednesday May 21st, 15;00-16:30, on campus; Wednesday May 28th, 14:30-16:00, on campus; May 28th, 16:00-17:30, online.
No appointment required to attend office hours, which are held online (on MS Teams: https://tinyurl.com/549e8pje) or on campus (Dept. of Social and political science, 2nd floor, room 205). For info about theses, check the following link: