Conflicts and Political Legitimacy
A.Y. 2023/2024
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: First trimester
Assessment methods: Esame
Assessment result: voto verbalizzato in trentesimi
Single course
This course can be attended as a single course.
Course syllabus and organization
Single session
Responsible
Lesson period
First trimester
Prerequisites for admission
No specific preliminary knowledge is required to fruitfully attend the course or take the exam.
Assessment methods and Criteria
The course is organized into two units, each one contributing equally to the final grade and each one connected to specifc assessment methods (please, check the details in Section 1 and Section 2).
Please note: Grades will be officially registered only after students achieve positive evaluation for the two units of the course (additional details are provided below, in section 3).
1. ASSESSMENT METHODS FOR UNIT 1
The exam structure is different for a) attending and b) non-attending students.
a) ATTENDING STUDENTS
Attending students are expected to regularly attend classes and to actively participate in discussions and other in-class activities. More specifically, attending students are required to:
- fill in the "Registration form";
- select the case on which they will work with their team for the case presentation to be delivered in class;
- before each class devoted to discussion, deliver remarks on the reading assignments at stake by completing the relevant "Questions and comments form";
- sit for the midterm written test;
- take active part in the preparation of the in-class case presentation and in the following discussion;
- deliver a "Case report".
Please note:
- all practical indications (relevant deadlines, links to online forms, dates of the written test and of in-class case presentations, etc.) necessary to comply with the requirements for attending students will be published on the Ariel website of the course in September;
- the listed requirements and the connected deadlines admit no exception: students who fail to comply with any of them will have to take the exam on the program for non-attending students.
Students fulfilling all the above requirements will be assessed considering:
- the results of their midterm written test;
- their individual participation in the class discussion following the presentation delivered by their team;
- their "Case report".
MIDTERM WRITTEN TEST
The test comprises open questions meant to verify the students' knowledge and understanding of the readings included in the exam program and of the topics addressed during classes and discussions. The written test also intends to ascertain the students' capacity to appropriately summarize and frame their acquired knowledge in order to answer specific questions in a rigorous way and without digressions. Moreover, the written test aims at verifying the students' capacity to establish meaningful connections among the various topics addressed in the exam materials, to grasp the implications of the relevant arguments and to assess, also in a comparative way, the adequacy of the different philosophical approaches illustrated in the reading assignments or discussed during classes.
The written tests will be marked with grades out of thirty, which result from the mean (and possibly the weighted mean) between the grades attributed to each answer. The mean is rounded up from 0.5 upwards, 30 cum laude equals 33 and, in the overall evaluation, 30 cum laude is obtained with a mean equal to or greater than 31.5.
Answers are assessed individually based on the pertinence, completeness and correctness of their content, and considering their expository clarity, their level of detail and the coherence and relevance of the proposed arguments. More specifically, grades out of thirty are attribute as follows:
- between 10 and 14 to non-pertinent answers (missing answers are treated as non-pertinent, and they are automatically assigned 10/30);
- between 14 and 17 to incomplete answers;
- between 12 and 17 to pertinent and complete but incorrect answers;
- between 18 and 23 to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing serious inaccuracies or excessive digressions and/or resulting unclear, not detailed, not contextualized or not supported by arguments;
- between 24 and 26 to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing only minor inaccuracies or few digressions and/or resulting partially unclear, not appropriately detailed, not adequately contextualized or not supported by fully satisfactory arguments;
- between 27 and 28 to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing no inaccuracies or digressions, and resulting clear, appropriately detailed, well contextualized and supported by fully satisfactory arguments;
- between 29 and 30 to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing no inaccuracies or digressions, and resulting clear, appropriately detailed, well contextualized, supported by fully satisfactory arguments, exhaustive, and including some original insights;
- 30 cum laude to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing no inaccuracies or digressions, resulting clear, appropriately detailed, well contextualized, supported by fully satisfactory arguments and exhaustive, and showing the capacity to rework and articulate acquired notions and knowledge in a rigorous and original way.
The results of the midterm written test for attending students will be published on the Ariel website of the course.
CASE PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION
At the beginning of the course, on the Ariel website, students will find the list of cases to be discussed during classes. The proposed cases are meant to provide instances of how conflicts emerge and are managed in politics, of the strategies political actors can endorse to vindicate or advance their conflicting claims and to communicate their dissent. Students will be required to select one of the proposed cases, and based on their selection, they will be divided into teams, each one in charge of presenting one of the cases to their colleagues during classes.
Case presentations are expected to provide: 1. a summary of the relevant facts and (if appropriate) insights to contextualize the case; 2. indications on the categories relevant to account for or interpret the case (if appropriate, with reference to the theoretical categories and approaches addressed during classes); 3. an evaluative analysis of the strategies endorsed by the actors involved. More details on how to prepare the presentation will be provided during classes and on the Ariel website of the course.
Each team presentation, which will need to respect specific time constraints, will be followed by a general discussion on the case at stake. The members of the presenting team will be assessed individually on the basis of their participation in the discussion, which will be subject to time constraints too. More precisely, each student will be evaluate considering his/her capacity: 1. to appropriately intervene in the discussion by proposing issues to be dealt with (up to 10 points); 2. to address questions and comments by students in the audience (up to 10); 3. to defend their proposed interpretation and evaluation of the case from counterarguments and from different interpretations or assessments (up to 10 points). Students will also be assessed considering their ability to respect time constraints and to efficiently use the time at their disposal (up to 3 points).
The grade (out of thirty) for the participation in case discussion is determined by the sum of the scores obtained for each of the mentioned aspects. 30 cum laude will be obtained with a minimum score of 31.
The grades for participation in case discussion will be published on the Ariel website of the course at the end of the course.
CASE REPORT
The "Case report" is a short document to be prepared by each student individually on one of the proposed cases (students are allowed to select the same case addressed with their team, or a case of their choice to be agreed upon with the instructor). The document, which is expected to be no longer than 3 pages or 15.000 characters (spaces, titles, notes, bibliography, etc. included), is meant to offer an discuss the the selected case by providing: 1. a summary of the relevant facts concerning the case at stake and (if appropriate) of its background and context; 2. insights on how to interpret the case (if appropriate, with reference to theoretical categories and approaches addressed during classes); and 3. an evaluative analysis of the strategies endorsed by the relevant actors. More details on how to write the "Case report" will be offered during classes and on the Ariel website of the course.
The case reports will be assessed considering: 1. the relevance and completeness of the factual information provided about the case (up to 8 points); 2. the appropriateness and insightfulness of the proposed interpretation (up to 8 points); 3. the consistency, relevance and originality of the arguments proposed to evaluate the decisions and the strategies endorsed by the actors involved (up to 8 points); 4. the overall structure of the report (up to 6 points); 5. the relevance of the sources and materials referred to in the report, and the appropriateness of their use (up to 3 points).
The overall grade (out of thirty) for the case report is determined by the sum of the scores obtained for each of the mentioned aspects. 30 cum laude will be obtained with a minimum score of 31.
The results for the case report will be published on the Ariel website of the course.
FINAL GRADES
Final grades (out of thirty) result from the weighted mean between: 1. the grade for the midterm written test (45%); 2. the grade for the case discussion (20%); and 3. the grade for the case report (35%).
30 cum laude is equal to 33 and, in the overall evaluation for Unit 1, 30 cum laude is obtained with a mean equal to or greater than of 31.5.
Final grades for Unit 1 will be published on the Ariel website of the course before official registration (please, check section 3 below).
b) NON-ATTENDING STUDENTS
For non-attending students, the exam consists in one single written test, divided into two parts. The material to prepare for the test is accordingly divided between "General readings" and "Specific readings".
The first part of the written test comprises open questions meant to ascertain the acquisition of appropriate knowledge and understanding of the topics addressed in the general readings as well as the students' capacity to establish connections between the various topics and to assess different approaches comparatively and critically.
In the second part of the written test, there will be one question for each of the following topics: "Politics and partisanship"; "Politics and violence"; "Dissent and disobedience" and "Politics without conflict: utopia or dystopia?". Students will have to select and answer one of the proposed questions, depending on the group of specific readings they have prepared. Indeed, the readings for the second part of the written test are divided into thematic groups, and students are required choose one topic of their interest and to prepare all and only the connected readings. The questions included in the second part of the written test require to discuss different and competing arguments concerning the relevant topic with reference to the assigned readings.
The two parts of the test are assessed separately, since they are meant to ascertain the acquisition of different competences and capacities. The two grades will contribute equally to the final grade for the course. The test will be considered passed only if both of its two parts are completed successfully.
The grade out ot thirty for the first part of the test is determined by the mean (and possibly the weighted mean) between the grades attributed to each answer. The mean is rounded up from 0.5 upwards, 30 cum laude equals 33 and, in the overall evaluation of the first part of the test, 30 cum laude is obtained with a mean equal to or greater than 31.5.
Answers are evaluated individually based on the pertinence, completeness and correctness of their content, and considering their expository clarity, their level of detail and the coherence and relevance of the proposed arguments. More specifically, grades out of thirty are attribute as follows:
- between 10 and 14 to non-pertinent answers (missing answers are treated as non-pertinent, and they are automatically assigned 10/30);
- between 14 and 17 to incomplete answers;
- between 12 and 17 to pertinent and complete but incorrect answers;
- between 18 and 23 to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing serious inaccuracies or excessive digressions, and/or resulting unclear, not detailed, not contextualized or not supported by arguments;
- between 24 and 26 to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing only minor inaccuracies or few digressions, and/or resulting partially unclear, not appropriately detailed, not adequately contextualized or not supported by fully satisfactory arguments;
- between 27 and 28 to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing no inaccuracies or digressions, and resulting clear, appropriately detailed, well contextualized and supported by fully satisfactory arguments;
- between 29 and 30 to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing no inaccuracies or digressions, resulting clear, appropriately detailed, well contextualized, supported by fully satisfactory arguments, exhaustive, and including some original insights;
- 30 cum laude to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing no inaccuracies or digressions, resulting clear, appropriately detailed, well contextualized, supported by fully satisfactory arguments, exhaustive, and showing the capacity to rework and articulate acquired notions and knowledge in a rigorous and original way.
For the second part of the written test, students' answers will be assessed considering: 1. their knowledge of the relevant readings (up to 11 points); 2. their capacity to apply such knowledge for addressing the proposed question (up to 11 points); 3. the clarity, consistency and originality of their arguments (up to 11 points). The grade for the second part of the test is determined by the sum of the scores obtained for each of the mentioned aspects, and 30 cum laude will be obtained with a minimum score of 31.
The overall grade for the written test is determined by the mean between the grade for the first part of the written test and that for the second part. 30 cum laude is equal to 33, and it will be obtained with a mean equal to or greater than 31.5.
Final grades for non-attending students will be published on the Ariel website of the course before official registration (please, check Section 3 below).
2. ASSESSMENT METHODS FOR UNIT 2
The exam structure is different for a) attendant and b) non-attendant students.
a) ATTENDING STUDENTS
Attending students are expected to regularly attend classes and to actively participate in the discussion and other in-class activities.
More specifically, attending students are required to:
- fill in the "Registration form" within the deadline specified at the beginning of the course
- select the case on which they will work for the group presentation to be delivered in class and for the individual "Case report" to be prepared at the end of the course
- before each class devoted to discussion, deliver remarks on the reading assignments at stake by completing in the relative "Questions and comments form"
- sit for the midterm written test
- take active part in the preparation of the in-class presentation and in the following discussion
- deliver the individual "Case report" on the selected case
Please note: At the beginning of the course, students will find on the Ariel website the deadlines for completing the forms and the relative links, the dates of the midterm written test and of the in-class presentations, and the list of cases to select from.
Students fulfilling all the above requirements will be assessed considering:
- the results of their midterm written test (45%)
- their individual participation in the class discussion following the presentation delivered by their team (20%)
- their individual "Case report" (35%)
The midterm written test will comprise open questions aimed at ascertaining the acquisition of appropriate knowledge and understanding of the topics addressed during classes and of the readings included in the exam program. The written test is also meant to ascertain students' ability to establish connections between the various topics covered by the course and to comparatively and critically assess different approaches and arguments.
Each group presentation will be followed by a class discussion on the case at stake. Members of the team in charge of the presentation will be individually assessed on the basis of their capacity to lead the discussion and to address their colleagues' questions and comments.
The "Case report" is a short document to be prepared by each student individually on the same case presented by his/her team. The document is expected to be no longer than 2 pages or 10.000 characters (spaces, titles, notes, bibliography, etc. included). The report should provide: 1. a summary of the relevant facts concerning the case at stake and (if appropriate) of its background; 2. insights on how to interpret the case (if appropriate, with reference to theoretical categories and approaches addressed during classes); and 3. an evaluative analysis of the strategies endorsed by the involved actors. More details on how to write the "Case report" will be offered in class. The report will be assessed by taking into account the clarity and completeness of the information provided about the case, the appropriateness and insightfulness of the interpretation offered, and the consistency of the arguments proposed to evaluate the decisions and the strategies endorsed by the relevant actors.
b) NON-ATTENDING STUDENTS
For non-attending students, the exam consists in one single written test, divided into two parts.
The first part of the written test will comprise open questions meant to ascertain the acquisition of appropriate knowledge and understanding of the topics addressed in the general readings as well as the students' capacity to establish connections between the various topics and to comparatively assess different approaches.
In the second part of the written test, there will be one question for each of the following topics: "The challenge of anarchy "; "Power and legitimate power: the need for authority"; "Authority: ideal to realistic accounts"; "Compliance and disobedience"; "democratic accounts of legitimacy: domestic to international". Each of the questions will require to discuss different and competing arguments concerning the relative topic. Students will have to select one of the proposed questions, on the basis of specific readings.
3. EXAM SESSIONS AND GRADE REGISTRATION
For each exam period, there will be one exam session devoted to Unit 1 (Prof. Pasquali) and one exam session devoted to Unit 2 (Prof. Favara). To take the exam about Unit 1 and/or about Unit 2, students must enrol in the relevant exam session.
Final grades will be officially registered only after students achieve positive evaluation for the two units of the course. Please note: To have their grades registered, students must enrol in one of Prof. Pasquali's exam sessions. More precisely, students are advised to follow the guidelines below depending on their situation:
a. you intend to take both exams in the same exam period: enrol in both Prof. Pasquali's and Prof. Favara's exam sessions; if the evaluation is positive for both exams, your final grade will be registered, and you will not need to enrol in any further exam session;
b. you have already passed the exam about Unit 1 and you intend to take exam about Unit 2: enrol in Prof. Favara's exam session to sit for the exam about Unit 2 and enrol also in Prof. Pasquali's exam session to have your final grade registered (provided the evaluation for Unit 2 is positive);
c. you have already passed the exam about Unit 2 and you intend to take the exam about Unit 1: enrol in Prof. Pasquali's exam session and, if the evaluation about Unit 1 is positive, your final grade will be registered;
d. you have already passed both the exam about unit 1 and the exam about unit 2, but you failed to enrol in one of Professor Pasquali's exam session and your final grade is still to be registered: enrol in Professor Pasquali's exam session.
Please note: Grades will be officially registered only after students achieve positive evaluation for the two units of the course (additional details are provided below, in section 3).
1. ASSESSMENT METHODS FOR UNIT 1
The exam structure is different for a) attending and b) non-attending students.
a) ATTENDING STUDENTS
Attending students are expected to regularly attend classes and to actively participate in discussions and other in-class activities. More specifically, attending students are required to:
- fill in the "Registration form";
- select the case on which they will work with their team for the case presentation to be delivered in class;
- before each class devoted to discussion, deliver remarks on the reading assignments at stake by completing the relevant "Questions and comments form";
- sit for the midterm written test;
- take active part in the preparation of the in-class case presentation and in the following discussion;
- deliver a "Case report".
Please note:
- all practical indications (relevant deadlines, links to online forms, dates of the written test and of in-class case presentations, etc.) necessary to comply with the requirements for attending students will be published on the Ariel website of the course in September;
- the listed requirements and the connected deadlines admit no exception: students who fail to comply with any of them will have to take the exam on the program for non-attending students.
Students fulfilling all the above requirements will be assessed considering:
- the results of their midterm written test;
- their individual participation in the class discussion following the presentation delivered by their team;
- their "Case report".
MIDTERM WRITTEN TEST
The test comprises open questions meant to verify the students' knowledge and understanding of the readings included in the exam program and of the topics addressed during classes and discussions. The written test also intends to ascertain the students' capacity to appropriately summarize and frame their acquired knowledge in order to answer specific questions in a rigorous way and without digressions. Moreover, the written test aims at verifying the students' capacity to establish meaningful connections among the various topics addressed in the exam materials, to grasp the implications of the relevant arguments and to assess, also in a comparative way, the adequacy of the different philosophical approaches illustrated in the reading assignments or discussed during classes.
The written tests will be marked with grades out of thirty, which result from the mean (and possibly the weighted mean) between the grades attributed to each answer. The mean is rounded up from 0.5 upwards, 30 cum laude equals 33 and, in the overall evaluation, 30 cum laude is obtained with a mean equal to or greater than 31.5.
Answers are assessed individually based on the pertinence, completeness and correctness of their content, and considering their expository clarity, their level of detail and the coherence and relevance of the proposed arguments. More specifically, grades out of thirty are attribute as follows:
- between 10 and 14 to non-pertinent answers (missing answers are treated as non-pertinent, and they are automatically assigned 10/30);
- between 14 and 17 to incomplete answers;
- between 12 and 17 to pertinent and complete but incorrect answers;
- between 18 and 23 to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing serious inaccuracies or excessive digressions and/or resulting unclear, not detailed, not contextualized or not supported by arguments;
- between 24 and 26 to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing only minor inaccuracies or few digressions and/or resulting partially unclear, not appropriately detailed, not adequately contextualized or not supported by fully satisfactory arguments;
- between 27 and 28 to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing no inaccuracies or digressions, and resulting clear, appropriately detailed, well contextualized and supported by fully satisfactory arguments;
- between 29 and 30 to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing no inaccuracies or digressions, and resulting clear, appropriately detailed, well contextualized, supported by fully satisfactory arguments, exhaustive, and including some original insights;
- 30 cum laude to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing no inaccuracies or digressions, resulting clear, appropriately detailed, well contextualized, supported by fully satisfactory arguments and exhaustive, and showing the capacity to rework and articulate acquired notions and knowledge in a rigorous and original way.
The results of the midterm written test for attending students will be published on the Ariel website of the course.
CASE PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION
At the beginning of the course, on the Ariel website, students will find the list of cases to be discussed during classes. The proposed cases are meant to provide instances of how conflicts emerge and are managed in politics, of the strategies political actors can endorse to vindicate or advance their conflicting claims and to communicate their dissent. Students will be required to select one of the proposed cases, and based on their selection, they will be divided into teams, each one in charge of presenting one of the cases to their colleagues during classes.
Case presentations are expected to provide: 1. a summary of the relevant facts and (if appropriate) insights to contextualize the case; 2. indications on the categories relevant to account for or interpret the case (if appropriate, with reference to the theoretical categories and approaches addressed during classes); 3. an evaluative analysis of the strategies endorsed by the actors involved. More details on how to prepare the presentation will be provided during classes and on the Ariel website of the course.
Each team presentation, which will need to respect specific time constraints, will be followed by a general discussion on the case at stake. The members of the presenting team will be assessed individually on the basis of their participation in the discussion, which will be subject to time constraints too. More precisely, each student will be evaluate considering his/her capacity: 1. to appropriately intervene in the discussion by proposing issues to be dealt with (up to 10 points); 2. to address questions and comments by students in the audience (up to 10); 3. to defend their proposed interpretation and evaluation of the case from counterarguments and from different interpretations or assessments (up to 10 points). Students will also be assessed considering their ability to respect time constraints and to efficiently use the time at their disposal (up to 3 points).
The grade (out of thirty) for the participation in case discussion is determined by the sum of the scores obtained for each of the mentioned aspects. 30 cum laude will be obtained with a minimum score of 31.
The grades for participation in case discussion will be published on the Ariel website of the course at the end of the course.
CASE REPORT
The "Case report" is a short document to be prepared by each student individually on one of the proposed cases (students are allowed to select the same case addressed with their team, or a case of their choice to be agreed upon with the instructor). The document, which is expected to be no longer than 3 pages or 15.000 characters (spaces, titles, notes, bibliography, etc. included), is meant to offer an discuss the the selected case by providing: 1. a summary of the relevant facts concerning the case at stake and (if appropriate) of its background and context; 2. insights on how to interpret the case (if appropriate, with reference to theoretical categories and approaches addressed during classes); and 3. an evaluative analysis of the strategies endorsed by the relevant actors. More details on how to write the "Case report" will be offered during classes and on the Ariel website of the course.
The case reports will be assessed considering: 1. the relevance and completeness of the factual information provided about the case (up to 8 points); 2. the appropriateness and insightfulness of the proposed interpretation (up to 8 points); 3. the consistency, relevance and originality of the arguments proposed to evaluate the decisions and the strategies endorsed by the actors involved (up to 8 points); 4. the overall structure of the report (up to 6 points); 5. the relevance of the sources and materials referred to in the report, and the appropriateness of their use (up to 3 points).
The overall grade (out of thirty) for the case report is determined by the sum of the scores obtained for each of the mentioned aspects. 30 cum laude will be obtained with a minimum score of 31.
The results for the case report will be published on the Ariel website of the course.
FINAL GRADES
Final grades (out of thirty) result from the weighted mean between: 1. the grade for the midterm written test (45%); 2. the grade for the case discussion (20%); and 3. the grade for the case report (35%).
30 cum laude is equal to 33 and, in the overall evaluation for Unit 1, 30 cum laude is obtained with a mean equal to or greater than of 31.5.
Final grades for Unit 1 will be published on the Ariel website of the course before official registration (please, check section 3 below).
b) NON-ATTENDING STUDENTS
For non-attending students, the exam consists in one single written test, divided into two parts. The material to prepare for the test is accordingly divided between "General readings" and "Specific readings".
The first part of the written test comprises open questions meant to ascertain the acquisition of appropriate knowledge and understanding of the topics addressed in the general readings as well as the students' capacity to establish connections between the various topics and to assess different approaches comparatively and critically.
In the second part of the written test, there will be one question for each of the following topics: "Politics and partisanship"; "Politics and violence"; "Dissent and disobedience" and "Politics without conflict: utopia or dystopia?". Students will have to select and answer one of the proposed questions, depending on the group of specific readings they have prepared. Indeed, the readings for the second part of the written test are divided into thematic groups, and students are required choose one topic of their interest and to prepare all and only the connected readings. The questions included in the second part of the written test require to discuss different and competing arguments concerning the relevant topic with reference to the assigned readings.
The two parts of the test are assessed separately, since they are meant to ascertain the acquisition of different competences and capacities. The two grades will contribute equally to the final grade for the course. The test will be considered passed only if both of its two parts are completed successfully.
The grade out ot thirty for the first part of the test is determined by the mean (and possibly the weighted mean) between the grades attributed to each answer. The mean is rounded up from 0.5 upwards, 30 cum laude equals 33 and, in the overall evaluation of the first part of the test, 30 cum laude is obtained with a mean equal to or greater than 31.5.
Answers are evaluated individually based on the pertinence, completeness and correctness of their content, and considering their expository clarity, their level of detail and the coherence and relevance of the proposed arguments. More specifically, grades out of thirty are attribute as follows:
- between 10 and 14 to non-pertinent answers (missing answers are treated as non-pertinent, and they are automatically assigned 10/30);
- between 14 and 17 to incomplete answers;
- between 12 and 17 to pertinent and complete but incorrect answers;
- between 18 and 23 to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing serious inaccuracies or excessive digressions, and/or resulting unclear, not detailed, not contextualized or not supported by arguments;
- between 24 and 26 to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing only minor inaccuracies or few digressions, and/or resulting partially unclear, not appropriately detailed, not adequately contextualized or not supported by fully satisfactory arguments;
- between 27 and 28 to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing no inaccuracies or digressions, and resulting clear, appropriately detailed, well contextualized and supported by fully satisfactory arguments;
- between 29 and 30 to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing no inaccuracies or digressions, resulting clear, appropriately detailed, well contextualized, supported by fully satisfactory arguments, exhaustive, and including some original insights;
- 30 cum laude to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing no inaccuracies or digressions, resulting clear, appropriately detailed, well contextualized, supported by fully satisfactory arguments, exhaustive, and showing the capacity to rework and articulate acquired notions and knowledge in a rigorous and original way.
For the second part of the written test, students' answers will be assessed considering: 1. their knowledge of the relevant readings (up to 11 points); 2. their capacity to apply such knowledge for addressing the proposed question (up to 11 points); 3. the clarity, consistency and originality of their arguments (up to 11 points). The grade for the second part of the test is determined by the sum of the scores obtained for each of the mentioned aspects, and 30 cum laude will be obtained with a minimum score of 31.
The overall grade for the written test is determined by the mean between the grade for the first part of the written test and that for the second part. 30 cum laude is equal to 33, and it will be obtained with a mean equal to or greater than 31.5.
Final grades for non-attending students will be published on the Ariel website of the course before official registration (please, check Section 3 below).
2. ASSESSMENT METHODS FOR UNIT 2
The exam structure is different for a) attendant and b) non-attendant students.
a) ATTENDING STUDENTS
Attending students are expected to regularly attend classes and to actively participate in the discussion and other in-class activities.
More specifically, attending students are required to:
- fill in the "Registration form" within the deadline specified at the beginning of the course
- select the case on which they will work for the group presentation to be delivered in class and for the individual "Case report" to be prepared at the end of the course
- before each class devoted to discussion, deliver remarks on the reading assignments at stake by completing in the relative "Questions and comments form"
- sit for the midterm written test
- take active part in the preparation of the in-class presentation and in the following discussion
- deliver the individual "Case report" on the selected case
Please note: At the beginning of the course, students will find on the Ariel website the deadlines for completing the forms and the relative links, the dates of the midterm written test and of the in-class presentations, and the list of cases to select from.
Students fulfilling all the above requirements will be assessed considering:
- the results of their midterm written test (45%)
- their individual participation in the class discussion following the presentation delivered by their team (20%)
- their individual "Case report" (35%)
The midterm written test will comprise open questions aimed at ascertaining the acquisition of appropriate knowledge and understanding of the topics addressed during classes and of the readings included in the exam program. The written test is also meant to ascertain students' ability to establish connections between the various topics covered by the course and to comparatively and critically assess different approaches and arguments.
Each group presentation will be followed by a class discussion on the case at stake. Members of the team in charge of the presentation will be individually assessed on the basis of their capacity to lead the discussion and to address their colleagues' questions and comments.
The "Case report" is a short document to be prepared by each student individually on the same case presented by his/her team. The document is expected to be no longer than 2 pages or 10.000 characters (spaces, titles, notes, bibliography, etc. included). The report should provide: 1. a summary of the relevant facts concerning the case at stake and (if appropriate) of its background; 2. insights on how to interpret the case (if appropriate, with reference to theoretical categories and approaches addressed during classes); and 3. an evaluative analysis of the strategies endorsed by the involved actors. More details on how to write the "Case report" will be offered in class. The report will be assessed by taking into account the clarity and completeness of the information provided about the case, the appropriateness and insightfulness of the interpretation offered, and the consistency of the arguments proposed to evaluate the decisions and the strategies endorsed by the relevant actors.
b) NON-ATTENDING STUDENTS
For non-attending students, the exam consists in one single written test, divided into two parts.
The first part of the written test will comprise open questions meant to ascertain the acquisition of appropriate knowledge and understanding of the topics addressed in the general readings as well as the students' capacity to establish connections between the various topics and to comparatively assess different approaches.
In the second part of the written test, there will be one question for each of the following topics: "The challenge of anarchy "; "Power and legitimate power: the need for authority"; "Authority: ideal to realistic accounts"; "Compliance and disobedience"; "democratic accounts of legitimacy: domestic to international". Each of the questions will require to discuss different and competing arguments concerning the relative topic. Students will have to select one of the proposed questions, on the basis of specific readings.
3. EXAM SESSIONS AND GRADE REGISTRATION
For each exam period, there will be one exam session devoted to Unit 1 (Prof. Pasquali) and one exam session devoted to Unit 2 (Prof. Favara). To take the exam about Unit 1 and/or about Unit 2, students must enrol in the relevant exam session.
Final grades will be officially registered only after students achieve positive evaluation for the two units of the course. Please note: To have their grades registered, students must enrol in one of Prof. Pasquali's exam sessions. More precisely, students are advised to follow the guidelines below depending on their situation:
a. you intend to take both exams in the same exam period: enrol in both Prof. Pasquali's and Prof. Favara's exam sessions; if the evaluation is positive for both exams, your final grade will be registered, and you will not need to enrol in any further exam session;
b. you have already passed the exam about Unit 1 and you intend to take exam about Unit 2: enrol in Prof. Favara's exam session to sit for the exam about Unit 2 and enrol also in Prof. Pasquali's exam session to have your final grade registered (provided the evaluation for Unit 2 is positive);
c. you have already passed the exam about Unit 2 and you intend to take the exam about Unit 1: enrol in Prof. Pasquali's exam session and, if the evaluation about Unit 1 is positive, your final grade will be registered;
d. you have already passed both the exam about unit 1 and the exam about unit 2, but you failed to enrol in one of Professor Pasquali's exam session and your final grade is still to be registered: enrol in Professor Pasquali's exam session.
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 or value 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.
The last part of the course is devoted to the discussion of real-world cases of conflicts, and it aims at providing clearer insights on how theoretical categories and analytical frames can be applied to make sense of and critically investigate concrete events and phenomena.
Topics and syllabus:
CONFLICT AND ITS SOURCES
Lecture 1: Competing interests
Lecture 2: Pluralism and disagreement
Lecture 3: Class discussion
CONFLICTS AND POLITICS
Lecture 4: Politics as conflict
Lecture 5: Conflict as a value?
Lecture 6: Class discussion
DEALING WITH CONFLICTS
Lecture 7: Fairness, deliberation and agonism
Lecture 8: Impartiality, partisanship and conflict
Lecture 9: Class discussion
CONFLICTS, DISSENT AND HARMONY
Lecture 10: Politics and violence
Lecture 11: Political dissent
Lecture 12: Politics without conflict: utopia or dystopia?
Lecture 13: Class discussion
Lecture 14: Midterm written test
Lecture 15: Case presentations and discussion
Lecture 16: Case presentations and discussion
Lecture 17: Case presentations and discussion
Lecture 18: Case presentations and discussion
Lecture 19: Case presentations and discussion
Lecture 20: Recap Lecture
Please note: The previous syllabus is provisional. The syllabus will be fine-tuned at the beginning of the course, and its final version, completed with more precise indications about the dates, will be published on the Ariel website of the course.
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 or value 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.
The last part of the course is devoted to the discussion of real-world cases of conflicts, and it aims at providing clearer insights on how theoretical categories and analytical frames can be applied to make sense of and critically investigate concrete events and phenomena.
Topics and syllabus:
CONFLICT AND ITS SOURCES
Lecture 1: Competing interests
Lecture 2: Pluralism and disagreement
Lecture 3: Class discussion
CONFLICTS AND POLITICS
Lecture 4: Politics as conflict
Lecture 5: Conflict as a value?
Lecture 6: Class discussion
DEALING WITH CONFLICTS
Lecture 7: Fairness, deliberation and agonism
Lecture 8: Impartiality, partisanship and conflict
Lecture 9: Class discussion
CONFLICTS, DISSENT AND HARMONY
Lecture 10: Politics and violence
Lecture 11: Political dissent
Lecture 12: Politics without conflict: utopia or dystopia?
Lecture 13: Class discussion
Lecture 14: Midterm written test
Lecture 15: Case presentations and discussion
Lecture 16: Case presentations and discussion
Lecture 17: Case presentations and discussion
Lecture 18: Case presentations and discussion
Lecture 19: Case presentations and discussion
Lecture 20: Recap Lecture
Please note: The previous syllabus is provisional. The syllabus will be fine-tuned at the beginning of the course, and its final version, completed with more precise indications about the dates, will be published on the Ariel website of the course.
Teaching methods
The course combines lessons, students' presentations, and class discussion.
Students' active participation in all in-class activities is strongly encouraged, and for case presentations an, students will be required to work in teams.
Teaching materials, including the slides presented during classes, will be available on the Ariel website of the course. The slides constitute, especially for attending students, a reference to keep track of the development of the program and, for both attending and non-attending students, a reference to easily identify the main issues and questions to focus on when addressing reading assignments and preparing for the exam.
The Ariel website of the course will also host materials prepared by the students for case discussions and meant to be shared with their colleagues.
Students' active participation in all in-class activities is strongly encouraged, and for case presentations an, students will be required to work in teams.
Teaching materials, including the slides presented during classes, will be available on the Ariel website of the course. The slides constitute, especially for attending students, a reference to keep track of the development of the program and, for both attending and non-attending students, a reference to easily identify the main issues and questions to focus on when addressing reading assignments and preparing for the exam.
The Ariel website of the course will also host materials prepared by the students for case discussions and meant to be shared with their colleagues.
Teaching Resources
The exam material is different for a) attending students and b) non-attending students
a) ATTENDING STUDENTS
For attending students, the exam material is 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 in-class discussion. More precisely, before classes devoted to discussion, students are expected to fill in the "Questions and comments form", which needs to include one question or one comment for each reading at stake.
CONFLICT AND ITS SOURCES
‒ Berlin, I. (2002), Liberty, Oxford University Press, excerpts.
‒ Gray, J. (1998), "Where pluralists and liberals part company", International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 6(1): 17-36.
‒ Lukes, S. (1989), "Making sense of moral conflict", in N.L. Rosenblum (ed.), Liberalism and the moral life, Harvard University Press, pp. 127-142.
CONFLICTS AND POLITICS
‒ 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.
DEALING WITH CONFLICTS
‒ Hampshire, S. (1996), "Justice is conflict", Tanner lectures on human values.
‒ 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.
CONFLICTS, DISSENT AND HARMONY
‒ Bufacchi, V. (2005), "Two concepts of violence", Political studies review, 3(2), 193-204.
‒ Arendt, H. (1970), On violence, Harcourt, excerpts.
‒ Coady, C.A.J. (2008), "The morality of terrorism", in Morality and political violence, Cambridge University Press, pp. 154-178.
‒ Delmas, C. (2018), A duty to resist: When disobedience should be uncivil. Oxford University Press, excerpts.
‒ Nozick, R. (1974), "A Framework for Utopia", in Anarchy, State and Utopia, Basic Books.
‒ Cohen, G.A. (2008), Why not Socialism?, Princeton University Press, pp. 3-45.
For attending students, the material for the midterm 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.
2. NON-ATTENDING STUDENTS
The exam material for non-attending students includes general readings - to be prepared for the first part of the written test - and specific readings organized into thematic groups to be prepared for the second part of the test.
· GENERAL READINGS for Unit 1:
Familiarity with all readings listed below is necessary to address the questions included in the first part of the written test:
‒ Lukes, S. (1989), "Making sense of moral conflict", in N.L. Rosenblum (ed.), Liberalism and the moral life, Harvard University Press, pp. 127-142.
‒ Ceva, E. (2012), "Pluralism", in A. Besussi (ed.), A companion to poltical philosophy. Methods, tools, topics, Ashgate, pp. 195-205.
‒ Berlin, I. (2002), Liberty, Oxford University Press, excerpts.
‒ Gray, J. (1998), "Where pluralists and liberals part company", International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 6(1): 17-36.
‒ Larmore, C. (1994), "Pluralism and reasonable disagreement", Social Philosophy and Policy, 11(1): 61-79.
‒ 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.
‒ Mouffe, C. (1994), "Political liberalism. Neutrality and the political", Ratio Juris, 7(3): 314-324.
‒ Hampshire, S. (1996), "Justice is conflict", Tanner lectures on human values.
· SPECIFIC READINGS for Unit 1:
Students are required to choose one topic from those listed below and prepare all and only the connected readings. Familiarity with such readings will be necessary address the relative thematic question proposed in the second part of the written test.
POLITICS AND PARTISANSHIP
‒ 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.
‒ Muirhead, R., & Rosenblum, N.L. (2020), "The political theory of parties and partisanship: Catching up", Annual Review of Political Science, 23: 95-110.
POLITCS AND VIOLENCE
‒ Bufacchi, V. (2005), "Two concepts of violence", Political studies review, 3(2), 193-204.
‒ Arendt, H. (1970), On violence, Harcourt, excerpts.
‒ Coady, C.A.J. (2008), "The morality of terrorism", in Morality and political violence, Cambridge University Press, pp. 154-178.
DISSENT AND DISOBEDIENCE
‒ Thoreau, D. (1849), Civil disobedience
‒ Lyons, D. (1998), "Moral judgment, historical reality, and civil disobedience", Philosophy & Public Affairs, 27(1): 31-49.
‒ Delmas, C. (2018), A duty to resist: When disobedience should be uncivil. Oxford University Press, excerpts.
POLITICS WITHOUT CONFLICT: UTOPIA OR DISTOPYA?
‒ 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.
‒ Cohen, G.A. (2008), Why not Socialism?, Princeton University Press, pp. 3-45.
Please note: Readings which are difficult to find will be available on the Ariel website of the course. On the Ariel websites, students will also find indications about the relevant excerpts of the readings included in the program.
a) ATTENDING STUDENTS
For attending students, the exam material is 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 in-class discussion. More precisely, before classes devoted to discussion, students are expected to fill in the "Questions and comments form", which needs to include one question or one comment for each reading at stake.
CONFLICT AND ITS SOURCES
‒ Berlin, I. (2002), Liberty, Oxford University Press, excerpts.
‒ Gray, J. (1998), "Where pluralists and liberals part company", International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 6(1): 17-36.
‒ Lukes, S. (1989), "Making sense of moral conflict", in N.L. Rosenblum (ed.), Liberalism and the moral life, Harvard University Press, pp. 127-142.
CONFLICTS AND POLITICS
‒ 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.
DEALING WITH CONFLICTS
‒ Hampshire, S. (1996), "Justice is conflict", Tanner lectures on human values.
‒ 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.
CONFLICTS, DISSENT AND HARMONY
‒ Bufacchi, V. (2005), "Two concepts of violence", Political studies review, 3(2), 193-204.
‒ Arendt, H. (1970), On violence, Harcourt, excerpts.
‒ Coady, C.A.J. (2008), "The morality of terrorism", in Morality and political violence, Cambridge University Press, pp. 154-178.
‒ Delmas, C. (2018), A duty to resist: When disobedience should be uncivil. Oxford University Press, excerpts.
‒ Nozick, R. (1974), "A Framework for Utopia", in Anarchy, State and Utopia, Basic Books.
‒ Cohen, G.A. (2008), Why not Socialism?, Princeton University Press, pp. 3-45.
For attending students, the material for the midterm 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.
2. NON-ATTENDING STUDENTS
The exam material for non-attending students includes general readings - to be prepared for the first part of the written test - and specific readings organized into thematic groups to be prepared for the second part of the test.
· GENERAL READINGS for Unit 1:
Familiarity with all readings listed below is necessary to address the questions included in the first part of the written test:
‒ Lukes, S. (1989), "Making sense of moral conflict", in N.L. Rosenblum (ed.), Liberalism and the moral life, Harvard University Press, pp. 127-142.
‒ Ceva, E. (2012), "Pluralism", in A. Besussi (ed.), A companion to poltical philosophy. Methods, tools, topics, Ashgate, pp. 195-205.
‒ Berlin, I. (2002), Liberty, Oxford University Press, excerpts.
‒ Gray, J. (1998), "Where pluralists and liberals part company", International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 6(1): 17-36.
‒ Larmore, C. (1994), "Pluralism and reasonable disagreement", Social Philosophy and Policy, 11(1): 61-79.
‒ 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.
‒ Mouffe, C. (1994), "Political liberalism. Neutrality and the political", Ratio Juris, 7(3): 314-324.
‒ Hampshire, S. (1996), "Justice is conflict", Tanner lectures on human values.
· SPECIFIC READINGS for Unit 1:
Students are required to choose one topic from those listed below and prepare all and only the connected readings. Familiarity with such readings will be necessary address the relative thematic question proposed in the second part of the written test.
POLITICS AND PARTISANSHIP
‒ 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.
‒ Muirhead, R., & Rosenblum, N.L. (2020), "The political theory of parties and partisanship: Catching up", Annual Review of Political Science, 23: 95-110.
POLITCS AND VIOLENCE
‒ Bufacchi, V. (2005), "Two concepts of violence", Political studies review, 3(2), 193-204.
‒ Arendt, H. (1970), On violence, Harcourt, excerpts.
‒ Coady, C.A.J. (2008), "The morality of terrorism", in Morality and political violence, Cambridge University Press, pp. 154-178.
DISSENT AND DISOBEDIENCE
‒ Thoreau, D. (1849), Civil disobedience
‒ Lyons, D. (1998), "Moral judgment, historical reality, and civil disobedience", Philosophy & Public Affairs, 27(1): 31-49.
‒ Delmas, C. (2018), A duty to resist: When disobedience should be uncivil. Oxford University Press, excerpts.
POLITICS WITHOUT CONFLICT: UTOPIA OR DISTOPYA?
‒ 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.
‒ Cohen, G.A. (2008), Why not Socialism?, Princeton University Press, pp. 3-45.
Please note: Readings which are difficult to find will be available on the Ariel website of the course. On the Ariel websites, students will also find indications about the relevant excerpts of the readings included in the program.
Unit 2
Course syllabus
The second part of the course focuses on political legitimacy.
Starting with a few introductory notes on the notion of legitimacy, the course will examine the relationship between anarchy, authority, justification, and legitimacy. 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 address this question, this unit offers a review of classical and contemporary accounts that have been provided on the sources of legitimacy and the limits of such accounts raised by postcolonial and multicultural studies. Special attention will be paid to the following notions: migration, global justice, human rights.
Topics and syllabus:
DANGEROUS ANARCHY
Lecture 1: Fear of death
Lecture 2: Protecting 'public good'
Lecture 3: Class discussion
NECESSARY AUTHORITY
Lecture 4: Against superstition
Lecture 5: Rightful freedom
Lecture 6: Class discussion
WHAT LEGITIMACY
Lecture 7: Ideal and realistic accounts. Rawls and critics/1
Lecture 8: Ideal and realistic accounts. Rawls and critics/2
Lecture 9: Class discussion
DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL CONCERNS
Lecture 10: Democratic legitimacy: proceduralism vs epistocracy
Lecture 11: Democracy and global justice/1
Lecture 12: Democracy and global justice/2
Lecture 13: Class discussion
Lecture 14: Midterm written test
Lecture 15: Case presentations and discussion
Lecture 16: Case presentations and discussion
Lecture 17: Case presentations and discussion
Lecture 18: Case presentations and discussion
Lecture 19: Case presentations and discussion
Lecture 20: Recap Lecture
Please note: The previous syllabus is provisional. The syllabus will be fine-tuned at the beginning of the course, and its final version, completed with more precise indications about the dates, will be published on the Ariel website.
Starting with a few introductory notes on the notion of legitimacy, the course will examine the relationship between anarchy, authority, justification, and legitimacy. 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 address this question, this unit offers a review of classical and contemporary accounts that have been provided on the sources of legitimacy and the limits of such accounts raised by postcolonial and multicultural studies. Special attention will be paid to the following notions: migration, global justice, human rights.
Topics and syllabus:
DANGEROUS ANARCHY
Lecture 1: Fear of death
Lecture 2: Protecting 'public good'
Lecture 3: Class discussion
NECESSARY AUTHORITY
Lecture 4: Against superstition
Lecture 5: Rightful freedom
Lecture 6: Class discussion
WHAT LEGITIMACY
Lecture 7: Ideal and realistic accounts. Rawls and critics/1
Lecture 8: Ideal and realistic accounts. Rawls and critics/2
Lecture 9: Class discussion
DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL CONCERNS
Lecture 10: Democratic legitimacy: proceduralism vs epistocracy
Lecture 11: Democracy and global justice/1
Lecture 12: Democracy and global justice/2
Lecture 13: Class discussion
Lecture 14: Midterm written test
Lecture 15: Case presentations and discussion
Lecture 16: Case presentations and discussion
Lecture 17: Case presentations and discussion
Lecture 18: Case presentations and discussion
Lecture 19: Case presentations and discussion
Lecture 20: Recap Lecture
Please note: The previous syllabus is provisional. The syllabus will be fine-tuned at the beginning of the course, and its final version, completed with more precise indications about the dates, will be published on the Ariel website.
Teaching methods
The course combines lessons, students' presentations, and class discussion.
Teaching Resources
The exam material is different for a) attending students and b) non-attending students
A) ATTENDING STUDENTS
For attending students, the exam material is 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 in-class discussion. More precisely, before classes devoted to discussion, students are expected to fill in the "Questions and comments form", which needs to include one question or one comment for each reading at stake.
DANGEROUS ANARCHY
- Hobbes T., De Cive [1642]: Chapter V
- Hobbes T., Leviathan [1651]: Chapters XIII, XVII
- Locke J., Second Treatise on Government [1689]: Chapters I, II; III; VII § 77; VIII § 95-99.119-122; IX § 123-126
NECESSARY AUTHORITY
- Spinoza B., Tractatus Theologicus-Politicus [1670]: Part 4, Chapters XVI-XX
- Kant I., The Science of Right [1790], Part 2, Section 1, § 43-45
- Kant I., An Answer to the Question "What is Enlightenment?" [1784]
- Kant I., Perpetual Peace [1795]: excerpts
WHAT LEGITIMACY
- Rawls J., A Theory of Justice [1971]: Chapter 1, § 1-2; Chapter 3, § 20-24
- Rawls J., Political Liberalism [1993]: Chapter (Lecture) 6
- Horton J., Political Legitimacy, Justice, and Consent (2012)
- Williams B., In the Beginning Was the Deed (2005), Chapter 1
- Estlund D., Human Nature, and the Limits (if any) of Political Philosophy (2011)
- Newey G., After Politics (2001): Chapter 7
- Rawls J., A Theory of Justice [1971]: Chapter 6, § 55-59
DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL CONCERNS
- Urbinati N., Unpolitical Democracy (2010)
- Pettit P., Depoliticizing Democracy (2004)
- Bohman R., Democracy across Boundaries (2007): excerpts
- Buchanan A., Justice, Legitimacy, and Self-determination (2007): excerpts
- Benhabib S., Exile, Statelessness, and Migration (2018): Chapter 6
- Shachar A., The Shifting Border (2020): lead essay
- Beeson, The coming of environmental authoritarianism (2010)
- Gardiner S., A Perfect Moral Storm (2006)
For attending students, the material for the mid-term 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-ATTENDING STUDENTS
The exam material for non-attendant students includes general readings - to be prepared for the first part of the written test - and specific readings organized into thematic groups to be prepared for the second part of the test.
· GENERAL READINGS for Unit 2:
Familiarity with all readings listed below is necessary to address the questions included in the first part of the written test.
- Beetham D., The Legitimation of Power, 1991: Chapters 1
- Chambers S., Theories of Political Justification, 2010
- Simmons J., Justification and Legitimacy, 2000: Chapters 6, 7
- Horton J., Political Obligation (1992), Chapters 1, 2
- Horton J., Political Obligation (1992), Chapters 3, 4, 6
- Weber M., Economy, and Society [1922], I.16-17; III.1-2
- Swaine L., The Liberal Conscience (2006), Chapters 1,3
- Miller D., Political Philosophy for Earthlings, in Political Theory, 2008
- Mill J. S., On Liberty [1859]: Chapter 1
- Hume D., On original contract [1752]
- Cohen J., An Epistemic Conception of Democracy, 1986
· SPECIFIC READINGS for Unit 2:
Students are required to choose one topic from those listed below and prepare all and only the connected readings. Familiarity with such readings will be necessary address the relative thematic question proposed in the second part of the written test.
DANGEROUS ANARCHY
- Hobbes T., De Cive [1642]: Chapter V
- Hobbes T., Leviathan [1651]: Chapters XIII, XVII
- Locke J., Second Treatise on Government [1689]: Chapters I, II; III; VII § 77; VIII § 95-99.119-122; IX § 123-126
NECESSARY AUTHORITY
- Spinoza B., Tractatus Theologicus-Politicus [1670]: Part 4, Chapters XVI-XX
- Kant I., The Science of Right [1790], Part 2, Section 1, § 43-45
- Kant I., An Answer to the Question "What is Enlightenment?" [1784]
- Kant I., Perpetual Peace [1795]: excerpts
WHAT LEGITIMACY
- Rawls J., A Theory of Justice [1971]: Chapter 1, § 1-2; Chapter 3, § 20-24
- Rawls J., Political Liberalism [1993]: Chapter (Lecture) 6
- Horton J., Political Legitimacy, Justice, and Consent (2012)
- Williams B., In the Beginning Was the Deed (2005), Chapter 1
- Estlund D., Human Nature, and the Limits (if any) of Political Philosophy (2011)
- Newey G., After Politics (2001): Chapter 7
- Rawls J., A Theory of Justice [1971]: Chapter 6, § 55-59
- Beeson, The coming of environmental authoritarianism (2010)
- Gardiner S., A Perfect Moral Storm (2006)
DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL CONCERNS
- Urbinati N., Unpolitical Democracy (2010)
- Pettit P., Depoliticizing Democracy (2004)
- Bohman R., Democracy across Boundaries (2007): excerpts
- Buchanan A., Justice, Legitimacy, and Self-determination (2007): excerpts
- Benhabib S., Exile, Statelessness, and Migration (2018): Chapter 6
- Shachar A., The Shifting Border (2020): lead essay
A) ATTENDING STUDENTS
For attending students, the exam material is 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 in-class discussion. More precisely, before classes devoted to discussion, students are expected to fill in the "Questions and comments form", which needs to include one question or one comment for each reading at stake.
DANGEROUS ANARCHY
- Hobbes T., De Cive [1642]: Chapter V
- Hobbes T., Leviathan [1651]: Chapters XIII, XVII
- Locke J., Second Treatise on Government [1689]: Chapters I, II; III; VII § 77; VIII § 95-99.119-122; IX § 123-126
NECESSARY AUTHORITY
- Spinoza B., Tractatus Theologicus-Politicus [1670]: Part 4, Chapters XVI-XX
- Kant I., The Science of Right [1790], Part 2, Section 1, § 43-45
- Kant I., An Answer to the Question "What is Enlightenment?" [1784]
- Kant I., Perpetual Peace [1795]: excerpts
WHAT LEGITIMACY
- Rawls J., A Theory of Justice [1971]: Chapter 1, § 1-2; Chapter 3, § 20-24
- Rawls J., Political Liberalism [1993]: Chapter (Lecture) 6
- Horton J., Political Legitimacy, Justice, and Consent (2012)
- Williams B., In the Beginning Was the Deed (2005), Chapter 1
- Estlund D., Human Nature, and the Limits (if any) of Political Philosophy (2011)
- Newey G., After Politics (2001): Chapter 7
- Rawls J., A Theory of Justice [1971]: Chapter 6, § 55-59
DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL CONCERNS
- Urbinati N., Unpolitical Democracy (2010)
- Pettit P., Depoliticizing Democracy (2004)
- Bohman R., Democracy across Boundaries (2007): excerpts
- Buchanan A., Justice, Legitimacy, and Self-determination (2007): excerpts
- Benhabib S., Exile, Statelessness, and Migration (2018): Chapter 6
- Shachar A., The Shifting Border (2020): lead essay
- Beeson, The coming of environmental authoritarianism (2010)
- Gardiner S., A Perfect Moral Storm (2006)
For attending students, the material for the mid-term 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-ATTENDING STUDENTS
The exam material for non-attendant students includes general readings - to be prepared for the first part of the written test - and specific readings organized into thematic groups to be prepared for the second part of the test.
· GENERAL READINGS for Unit 2:
Familiarity with all readings listed below is necessary to address the questions included in the first part of the written test.
- Beetham D., The Legitimation of Power, 1991: Chapters 1
- Chambers S., Theories of Political Justification, 2010
- Simmons J., Justification and Legitimacy, 2000: Chapters 6, 7
- Horton J., Political Obligation (1992), Chapters 1, 2
- Horton J., Political Obligation (1992), Chapters 3, 4, 6
- Weber M., Economy, and Society [1922], I.16-17; III.1-2
- Swaine L., The Liberal Conscience (2006), Chapters 1,3
- Miller D., Political Philosophy for Earthlings, in Political Theory, 2008
- Mill J. S., On Liberty [1859]: Chapter 1
- Hume D., On original contract [1752]
- Cohen J., An Epistemic Conception of Democracy, 1986
· SPECIFIC READINGS for Unit 2:
Students are required to choose one topic from those listed below and prepare all and only the connected readings. Familiarity with such readings will be necessary address the relative thematic question proposed in the second part of the written test.
DANGEROUS ANARCHY
- Hobbes T., De Cive [1642]: Chapter V
- Hobbes T., Leviathan [1651]: Chapters XIII, XVII
- Locke J., Second Treatise on Government [1689]: Chapters I, II; III; VII § 77; VIII § 95-99.119-122; IX § 123-126
NECESSARY AUTHORITY
- Spinoza B., Tractatus Theologicus-Politicus [1670]: Part 4, Chapters XVI-XX
- Kant I., The Science of Right [1790], Part 2, Section 1, § 43-45
- Kant I., An Answer to the Question "What is Enlightenment?" [1784]
- Kant I., Perpetual Peace [1795]: excerpts
WHAT LEGITIMACY
- Rawls J., A Theory of Justice [1971]: Chapter 1, § 1-2; Chapter 3, § 20-24
- Rawls J., Political Liberalism [1993]: Chapter (Lecture) 6
- Horton J., Political Legitimacy, Justice, and Consent (2012)
- Williams B., In the Beginning Was the Deed (2005), Chapter 1
- Estlund D., Human Nature, and the Limits (if any) of Political Philosophy (2011)
- Newey G., After Politics (2001): Chapter 7
- Rawls J., A Theory of Justice [1971]: Chapter 6, § 55-59
- Beeson, The coming of environmental authoritarianism (2010)
- Gardiner S., A Perfect Moral Storm (2006)
DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL CONCERNS
- Urbinati N., Unpolitical Democracy (2010)
- Pettit P., Depoliticizing Democracy (2004)
- Bohman R., Democracy across Boundaries (2007): excerpts
- Buchanan A., Justice, Legitimacy, and Self-determination (2007): excerpts
- Benhabib S., Exile, Statelessness, and Migration (2018): Chapter 6
- Shachar A., The Shifting Border (2020): lead essay
Unit 1
SPS/01 - POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY - University credits: 6
Lessons: 40 hours
Professor:
Pasquali Francesca
Unit 2
SPS/01 - POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY - University credits: 6
Lessons: 40 hours
Professor:
Favara Greta
Educational website(s)
Professor(s)
Reception:
Upcoming office hours: Monday April 22nd, 14:30-16:30, on campus; Monday April 22nd 16:30-18:00, online; Thursday May 2nd, 14:00-17:00, online
No appointment required to attend office hours, which are held online (on MS Teams: https://msteams.link/5MTK) or on campus (Dept. of Social and political science, 2nd floor, room 205). For info about theses, check the following link: