Conflicts and political legitimacy
A.A. 2021/2022
Obiettivi formativi
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.
Risultati apprendimento attesi
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.
Periodo: Primo trimestre
Modalità di valutazione: Esame
Giudizio di valutazione: voto verbalizzato in trentesimi
Corso singolo
Questo insegnamento non può essere seguito come corso singolo. Puoi trovare gli insegnamenti disponibili consultando il catalogo corsi singoli.
Programma e organizzazione didattica
Edizione unica
Responsabile
Periodo
Primo trimestre
Classes will be live-streamed.
Indications for attending classes remotely will be published on the Ariel website of the course.
Indications for attending classes remotely will be published on the Ariel website of the course.
Prerequisiti
No specific preliminary knowledge is required to fruitfully attend the course or take the exam.
Modalità di verifica dell’apprendimento e criteri di valutazione
The course is organized into two units, each one contributing equally to the final mark. Marks will be officially registered only after students achieve positive evaluation for both the two units of the course (check the details below, point 3).
1. ASSESSMENT METHODS FOR UNIT 1
The exam structure is different for a) attendant and b) non-attendant students.
a) Attendant students
Attendant students will be assessed on the basis of a presentation delivered in class and on the results of a written test, which will be scheduled at the end of the course.
For what regards presentations, students will be required to summarize and discuss the central arguments proposed in the assigned readings or to critically discuss concrete cases of conflict. The evaluation is intended to ascertain, on the one hand, 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. On the other hand, the evaluation aims at assessing students' capacity to apply theoretical categories and analytical frames to real-world cases in order to understand their peculiarity and to discuss their relevance and their implications.
The written test comprises open questions, which are meant to ascertain the acquisition of appropriate knowledge and understanding of the topics addressed during classes and in 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. Please note: there will be only one written test on the program for attendant students, and it will be scheduled at the end of the course, during an exam session specifically devoted to attendant students.
Final grades for Unit 1 will be awarded by weighting the performance during the in-class presentation (40%) and the results of written test (60%).
b) Non-attendant students
For non-attendant students, the exam consists in one single oral exam.
The oral exam is meant to ascertain the acquisition of appropriate knowledge and understanding of the topics addressed both in the compulsory and in the elective readings. More precisely, the oral exam intends to ascertain the students' capacity to establish meaningful connections among the various topics coveand to comparatively assess different approaches proposed in the readings. The oral exam is also intended to evaluate the students' capacity to summarize the main points of the readings, to autonomously assess the validity of the arguments under examination, to challenge or defend them on the basis of appropriate reasons.
2. ASSESSMENT METHODS FOR UNIT 2
The exam structure is different for a) attendant and b) non-attendant students.
a) Attendant students
Attendant students will be assessed on the basis of their presentations, and they will be required to deliver a paper at the end of the course. Finally, they will be required to discuss their work during an oral exam.
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.
For what regards papers, students will be required to engage with a comparison among AT LEAST TWO AUTHORS of choice in order to compare their contribution on political legitimacy, to argue for or against author's positions, to conclude with one's own position. The authors of choice cannot be the ones already chosen for the presentations during classes. The paper should NOT BE LONGER THAN 3000 words.
The evaluation of the paper is meant to assess the acquisition of argumentative skills apt to effectively engage in discussion about the topics at stake and about the assigned readings, to 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.
Finally, individual oral exam will be planned to discuss the paper and further TWO authors of choice from the list below (the authors of choice cannot be the ones already chosen for the presentations and for the paper).
Final grades for Unit 2 will be awarded by weighting presentation, paper and a final oral exam as follows:
- Presentation: 25 %
- Paper: 50 %
- Final oral exam: 25%
b) Non-attendant students
Non-attendant students will be assessed on the basis of a paper and of an oral exam.
For what regards papers, students will be required to engage with a comparison among AT LEAST THREE AUTHORS of choice in order to compare their contribution on political legitimacy, to argue for or against author's positions, to conclude with one's own position. The authors of choice cannot be the ones already chosen for the presentations during classes. The paper SHOULD NOT BE LONGER THAN 4000 words.
The evaluation of the paper is meant to assess the acquisition of argumentative skills apt to effectively engage in discussion about the topics at stake and about the assigned readings, to 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.
Finally, individual oral exam will be planned to discuss the paper and further SIX AUTHORS of choice (the authors of choice cannot be the ones already chosen for the paper).
The oral exam is meant to discuss the paper and the authors of choice for the oral exam; it is meant both to ascertain the acquisition of appropriate knowledge and understanding of the topics addressed in the assigned readings, and to also ascertain students' capacity to establish meaningful connections among the different topics covered by the assigned readings and to comparatively assess different approaches and arguments.
Final grades for Unit 2 will be awarded by weighting paper and a final oral exam as follows:
- Paper: 50 %
- Final oral exam: 50%
3. EXAM SESSIONS AND MARK 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. Sala). To take the exam about unit 1 and/or about unit 2, students must enrol in the relevant exam session.
Marks will be officially registered only after students achieve positive evaluation for the two units of the course.
Please note: To have their marks 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. Sala's exam sessions; if the evaluation is positive for both exams, your final mark 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. Sala's exam session to sit for the exam about unit 2 and enrol also in Prof. Pasquali's exam session to have your final mark registered (provided the evaluation for unit 2 is positive)
c. you have already passed the exam about unit 2 and you intend to take exam about unit 1: enrol in Prof. Pasquali's exam session and, if the evaluation about unit 1 is positive, your final mark will be registered
1. ASSESSMENT METHODS FOR UNIT 1
The exam structure is different for a) attendant and b) non-attendant students.
a) Attendant students
Attendant students will be assessed on the basis of a presentation delivered in class and on the results of a written test, which will be scheduled at the end of the course.
For what regards presentations, students will be required to summarize and discuss the central arguments proposed in the assigned readings or to critically discuss concrete cases of conflict. The evaluation is intended to ascertain, on the one hand, 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. On the other hand, the evaluation aims at assessing students' capacity to apply theoretical categories and analytical frames to real-world cases in order to understand their peculiarity and to discuss their relevance and their implications.
The written test comprises open questions, which are meant to ascertain the acquisition of appropriate knowledge and understanding of the topics addressed during classes and in 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. Please note: there will be only one written test on the program for attendant students, and it will be scheduled at the end of the course, during an exam session specifically devoted to attendant students.
Final grades for Unit 1 will be awarded by weighting the performance during the in-class presentation (40%) and the results of written test (60%).
b) Non-attendant students
For non-attendant students, the exam consists in one single oral exam.
The oral exam is meant to ascertain the acquisition of appropriate knowledge and understanding of the topics addressed both in the compulsory and in the elective readings. More precisely, the oral exam intends to ascertain the students' capacity to establish meaningful connections among the various topics coveand to comparatively assess different approaches proposed in the readings. The oral exam is also intended to evaluate the students' capacity to summarize the main points of the readings, to autonomously assess the validity of the arguments under examination, to challenge or defend them on the basis of appropriate reasons.
2. ASSESSMENT METHODS FOR UNIT 2
The exam structure is different for a) attendant and b) non-attendant students.
a) Attendant students
Attendant students will be assessed on the basis of their presentations, and they will be required to deliver a paper at the end of the course. Finally, they will be required to discuss their work during an oral exam.
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.
For what regards papers, students will be required to engage with a comparison among AT LEAST TWO AUTHORS of choice in order to compare their contribution on political legitimacy, to argue for or against author's positions, to conclude with one's own position. The authors of choice cannot be the ones already chosen for the presentations during classes. The paper should NOT BE LONGER THAN 3000 words.
The evaluation of the paper is meant to assess the acquisition of argumentative skills apt to effectively engage in discussion about the topics at stake and about the assigned readings, to 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.
Finally, individual oral exam will be planned to discuss the paper and further TWO authors of choice from the list below (the authors of choice cannot be the ones already chosen for the presentations and for the paper).
Final grades for Unit 2 will be awarded by weighting presentation, paper and a final oral exam as follows:
- Presentation: 25 %
- Paper: 50 %
- Final oral exam: 25%
b) Non-attendant students
Non-attendant students will be assessed on the basis of a paper and of an oral exam.
For what regards papers, students will be required to engage with a comparison among AT LEAST THREE AUTHORS of choice in order to compare their contribution on political legitimacy, to argue for or against author's positions, to conclude with one's own position. The authors of choice cannot be the ones already chosen for the presentations during classes. The paper SHOULD NOT BE LONGER THAN 4000 words.
The evaluation of the paper is meant to assess the acquisition of argumentative skills apt to effectively engage in discussion about the topics at stake and about the assigned readings, to 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.
Finally, individual oral exam will be planned to discuss the paper and further SIX AUTHORS of choice (the authors of choice cannot be the ones already chosen for the paper).
The oral exam is meant to discuss the paper and the authors of choice for the oral exam; it is meant both to ascertain the acquisition of appropriate knowledge and understanding of the topics addressed in the assigned readings, and to also ascertain students' capacity to establish meaningful connections among the different topics covered by the assigned readings and to comparatively assess different approaches and arguments.
Final grades for Unit 2 will be awarded by weighting paper and a final oral exam as follows:
- Paper: 50 %
- Final oral exam: 50%
3. EXAM SESSIONS AND MARK 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. Sala). To take the exam about unit 1 and/or about unit 2, students must enrol in the relevant exam session.
Marks will be officially registered only after students achieve positive evaluation for the two units of the course.
Please note: To have their marks 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. Sala's exam sessions; if the evaluation is positive for both exams, your final mark 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. Sala's exam session to sit for the exam about unit 2 and enrol also in Prof. Pasquali's exam session to have your final mark registered (provided the evaluation for unit 2 is positive)
c. you have already passed the exam about unit 2 and you intend to take exam about unit 1: enrol in Prof. Pasquali's exam session and, if the evaluation about unit 1 is positive, your final mark will be registered
Unit 1
Programma
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.
The last part of the course is devoted to the discussion of real-world cases of conflict ant 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.
Syllabus for attendant students:
Lecture 1: Competing interests and conflict
Lecture 2: Pluralism and disagreement
Lecture 3: Politics as conflict
Lecture 4: Conflict as a value?
Lecture 5: Presentations and class discussion on "Pluralism and disagreement"
Lecture 6: Presentations and class discussion on "Politics as conflict"
Lecture 7: Presentations and class discussion on "Conflict as a value?"
Lecture 8: Managing conflict: fairness, deliberation and agonism
Lecture 9: Presentations and class discussion on "Managing conflict: fairness, deliberation and agonism"
Lecture 10: Impartiality, partisanship and conflict
Lecture 11: Presentations and class discussion on "Impartiality, partisanship and conflict"
Lecture 12: Politics and violence
Lecture 13: Presentations and class discussion on "Politics and violence"
Lecture 14: Political dissent
Lecture 15: Presentations and class discussion on "Political dissent"
Lecture 16: Politics without conflict: utopia or dystopia?
Lecture 17: Presentations and class discussion on "Politics without conflict: utopia or dystopia?"
Lecture 18: Case discussion
Lecture 19: Case discussion
Lecture 20: Recap Lecture
Please note: The previous syllabus is provisional. The syllabus will be fine-tuned at the beginning of the course taking into account the number of students attending the course. The final version of the syllabus, completed with more precise indications about the relevant dates, will be available 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 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 conflict ant 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.
Syllabus for attendant students:
Lecture 1: Competing interests and conflict
Lecture 2: Pluralism and disagreement
Lecture 3: Politics as conflict
Lecture 4: Conflict as a value?
Lecture 5: Presentations and class discussion on "Pluralism and disagreement"
Lecture 6: Presentations and class discussion on "Politics as conflict"
Lecture 7: Presentations and class discussion on "Conflict as a value?"
Lecture 8: Managing conflict: fairness, deliberation and agonism
Lecture 9: Presentations and class discussion on "Managing conflict: fairness, deliberation and agonism"
Lecture 10: Impartiality, partisanship and conflict
Lecture 11: Presentations and class discussion on "Impartiality, partisanship and conflict"
Lecture 12: Politics and violence
Lecture 13: Presentations and class discussion on "Politics and violence"
Lecture 14: Political dissent
Lecture 15: Presentations and class discussion on "Political dissent"
Lecture 16: Politics without conflict: utopia or dystopia?
Lecture 17: Presentations and class discussion on "Politics without conflict: utopia or dystopia?"
Lecture 18: Case discussion
Lecture 19: Case discussion
Lecture 20: Recap Lecture
Please note: The previous syllabus is provisional. The syllabus will be fine-tuned at the beginning of the course taking into account the number of students attending the course. The final version of the syllabus, completed with more precise indications about the relevant dates, will be available on the Ariel website of the course.
Metodi didattici
The course combines lessons, students' presentations, and class discussion.
Materiale di riferimento
The exam material is different for a) attendant students and b) non-attendant students
a) Attendant students
For attendant 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 presentations and class-discussion.
· Pluralism and disagreement
‒ 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.
‒ Lukes, S. (1989), "Making sense of moral conflict", in N.L. Rosenblum (ed.), Liberalism and the moral life, Harvard University Press, pp. 127-142.
· 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.
· Managing conflict: fairness, deliberation and agonism
‒ Hampshire, S. (1996), "Justice is conflict", Tanner lectures on human values.
‒ 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.
· Conflict and violence
‒ 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.
· Political dissent
‒ 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 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.
‒ Cohen, G.A. (2008), Why not Socialism?, Princeton University Press, pp. 3-45.
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
The exam material for non-attendant students includes compulsory readings integrated by three elective readings to be selected from the provided list.
· Compulsory readings:
‒ Lukes, S. (1989), "Making sense of moral conflict", in N.L. Rosenblum (ed.), Liberalism and the moral life, Harvard University Press, pp. 127-142.
‒ 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.
‒ 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.
· Elective readings - 3 readings to be selected 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.
‒ 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
‒ 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.
‒ 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.
a) Attendant students
For attendant 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 presentations and class-discussion.
· Pluralism and disagreement
‒ 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.
‒ Lukes, S. (1989), "Making sense of moral conflict", in N.L. Rosenblum (ed.), Liberalism and the moral life, Harvard University Press, pp. 127-142.
· 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.
· Managing conflict: fairness, deliberation and agonism
‒ Hampshire, S. (1996), "Justice is conflict", Tanner lectures on human values.
‒ 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.
· Conflict and violence
‒ 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.
· Political dissent
‒ 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 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.
‒ Cohen, G.A. (2008), Why not Socialism?, Princeton University Press, pp. 3-45.
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
The exam material for non-attendant students includes compulsory readings integrated by three elective readings to be selected from the provided list.
· Compulsory readings:
‒ Lukes, S. (1989), "Making sense of moral conflict", in N.L. Rosenblum (ed.), Liberalism and the moral life, Harvard University Press, pp. 127-142.
‒ 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.
‒ 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.
· Elective readings - 3 readings to be selected 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.
‒ 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
‒ 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.
‒ 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.
Unit 2
Programma
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; toleration and modus vivendi, democracy. In conclusion, some reflections are devoted to post-colonial issue and multiculturalism.
Syllabus
Lecture 1: FROM CONFLICTS TO THE NEED FOR AUTHORITY
· Hobbes T., Leviathan [1651]: Chapters XIV, XVII
· Locke J., Second Treatise on Government [1689]: Chapters II; III; VII §77; VIII §95-99.119-122; IX §123-126
· Kant I., The Science of Right [1790], Part 2, Section 1, §43-45
Lecture 2: POLITICAL OBLIGATION. VOLUNTARIST JUSTIFICATIONS (Dr Favara PhD)
· Horton J., Political Obligation (1992), Chapters 1, 2
Lecture 3: POLITICAL OBLIGATION. NON-VOLUNTARIST JUSTIFICATIONS (Dr Favara PhD)
· Horton J., Political Obligation (1992), Chapters 3, 4, 6
Lecture 4: POLITICAL AUTHORITY AS A LEGITIMATE POLITICAL POWER
· Weber M., Economy and Society [1922], I.16-17; III.1-2
· Simmons J., Justification and Legitimacy (1999)
Lecture 5: LEGITIMACY, JUSTIFICATION, JUSTICE. IDEALIST TO REALIST ACCOUNTS OF POLITICAL LEGITIMACY (Dr Favara PhD)
· 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)
Lecture 6: PRESENTATIONS (see readings of Lecture 1: Hobbes, Locke)
Lecture 7: PRESENTATIONS (see readings of Lecture 1 & 4: Kant, Weber)
Lecture 8: PRESENTATIONS (see readings of Lecture 4 & 5: Simmons, Horton)
Lecture 9: PRESENTATIONS (see readings of Lecture 5: Williams, Estlund)
Lecture 10: THE TRADITION OF PUBLIC REASON
· Kant I., An Answer to the Question "What is Enlightenment?" [1784]
· Rawls J. Political Liberalism (1993), Chapter (Lecture) 6
Lecture 11: PRESENTATIONS (see readings of Lecture 10)
Lecture 12: PUBLIC REASON AND BEYOND. DEMOCRATIC LEGITIMACY
· Christiano T., The Constitution of Equality (2008), Chapter 6
· Estlund D., Democratic Authority (2009), Chapter 1
· Urbinati N., Unpolitical Democracy (2010)
· Pettit P., Depoliticizing Democracy (2004)
Lecture 13: PRESENTATIONS (see readings of Lecture 12)
Lecture 14: CONTESTED LEGITIMACY. THE CLAIM TO TOLERATION
· Audi R., Democratic Authority and the Separation of Church and State (2011), Chapters 1, 4
· Swaine L., The Liberal Conscience (2006), Chapters 1,3
· Baiasu S., Toleration and Pragmatism (2017)
Lecture 15: PRESENTATIONS (see readings of Lecture 14)
Lecture 16: PUBLIC JUSTIFICATION AS A PRACTICE. MODUS VIVENDI
· Vallier K., On Distinguishing Publicly Justified Polities from Modus Vivendi Regimes (2015)
· Sala R., Modus Vivendi and The Motivation for Compliance (2019)
Lecture 17: PRESENTATIONS (see readings of Lecture 16)
Lecture 18: RETHINKING LEGITIMACY. TRANSFORMATIVE CHANGE AND RACIAL JUSTICE WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF DEMOCRACY (Dr Badona Monteiro)
· Pineda E., Seeing Like an Activist. Civil Disobedience and the Civil Rights Movement (2021), Chap.1
· Celikates R., Rethinking Civil Disobedience as a Practice of Contestation-Beyond the Liberal Paradigm (2016), pp. 42-43
· Scheuerman W. E., Civil Disobedience (2018), Chapter 2
Lecture 19: RETHINKING LEGITIMACY. THE LIBERAL CASE FOR INTERFERENCE IN CULTURAL PRACTICES (Dr Cesarano)
· Chambers C., Sex Culture and Justice (2008), Chapter 4
· Moller Okin S., Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women? (1999), Replies by Honing, Al-Hibri, Gilman, Parekh, Nusbaum
Lecture 20: PRESENTATIONS (see readings of Lecture 18 &19).
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; toleration and modus vivendi, democracy. In conclusion, some reflections are devoted to post-colonial issue and multiculturalism.
Syllabus
Lecture 1: FROM CONFLICTS TO THE NEED FOR AUTHORITY
· Hobbes T., Leviathan [1651]: Chapters XIV, XVII
· Locke J., Second Treatise on Government [1689]: Chapters II; III; VII §77; VIII §95-99.119-122; IX §123-126
· Kant I., The Science of Right [1790], Part 2, Section 1, §43-45
Lecture 2: POLITICAL OBLIGATION. VOLUNTARIST JUSTIFICATIONS (Dr Favara PhD)
· Horton J., Political Obligation (1992), Chapters 1, 2
Lecture 3: POLITICAL OBLIGATION. NON-VOLUNTARIST JUSTIFICATIONS (Dr Favara PhD)
· Horton J., Political Obligation (1992), Chapters 3, 4, 6
Lecture 4: POLITICAL AUTHORITY AS A LEGITIMATE POLITICAL POWER
· Weber M., Economy and Society [1922], I.16-17; III.1-2
· Simmons J., Justification and Legitimacy (1999)
Lecture 5: LEGITIMACY, JUSTIFICATION, JUSTICE. IDEALIST TO REALIST ACCOUNTS OF POLITICAL LEGITIMACY (Dr Favara PhD)
· 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)
Lecture 6: PRESENTATIONS (see readings of Lecture 1: Hobbes, Locke)
Lecture 7: PRESENTATIONS (see readings of Lecture 1 & 4: Kant, Weber)
Lecture 8: PRESENTATIONS (see readings of Lecture 4 & 5: Simmons, Horton)
Lecture 9: PRESENTATIONS (see readings of Lecture 5: Williams, Estlund)
Lecture 10: THE TRADITION OF PUBLIC REASON
· Kant I., An Answer to the Question "What is Enlightenment?" [1784]
· Rawls J. Political Liberalism (1993), Chapter (Lecture) 6
Lecture 11: PRESENTATIONS (see readings of Lecture 10)
Lecture 12: PUBLIC REASON AND BEYOND. DEMOCRATIC LEGITIMACY
· Christiano T., The Constitution of Equality (2008), Chapter 6
· Estlund D., Democratic Authority (2009), Chapter 1
· Urbinati N., Unpolitical Democracy (2010)
· Pettit P., Depoliticizing Democracy (2004)
Lecture 13: PRESENTATIONS (see readings of Lecture 12)
Lecture 14: CONTESTED LEGITIMACY. THE CLAIM TO TOLERATION
· Audi R., Democratic Authority and the Separation of Church and State (2011), Chapters 1, 4
· Swaine L., The Liberal Conscience (2006), Chapters 1,3
· Baiasu S., Toleration and Pragmatism (2017)
Lecture 15: PRESENTATIONS (see readings of Lecture 14)
Lecture 16: PUBLIC JUSTIFICATION AS A PRACTICE. MODUS VIVENDI
· Vallier K., On Distinguishing Publicly Justified Polities from Modus Vivendi Regimes (2015)
· Sala R., Modus Vivendi and The Motivation for Compliance (2019)
Lecture 17: PRESENTATIONS (see readings of Lecture 16)
Lecture 18: RETHINKING LEGITIMACY. TRANSFORMATIVE CHANGE AND RACIAL JUSTICE WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF DEMOCRACY (Dr Badona Monteiro)
· Pineda E., Seeing Like an Activist. Civil Disobedience and the Civil Rights Movement (2021), Chap.1
· Celikates R., Rethinking Civil Disobedience as a Practice of Contestation-Beyond the Liberal Paradigm (2016), pp. 42-43
· Scheuerman W. E., Civil Disobedience (2018), Chapter 2
Lecture 19: RETHINKING LEGITIMACY. THE LIBERAL CASE FOR INTERFERENCE IN CULTURAL PRACTICES (Dr Cesarano)
· Chambers C., Sex Culture and Justice (2008), Chapter 4
· Moller Okin S., Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women? (1999), Replies by Honing, Al-Hibri, Gilman, Parekh, Nusbaum
Lecture 20: PRESENTATIONS (see readings of Lecture 18 &19).
Metodi didattici
The course combines lessons, students' presentations, and class discussion.
Materiale di riferimento
he exam material is different for a) attendant students and b) non-attendant students
a) Attendant students
For attendant students, readings are expected to be completed in advance of the relevant session devoted to presentations and following discussion.
- Material for the presentation, the paper and the oral exam:
· Hobbes T., Leviathan [1651]: Chapters XIV, XVII
· Locke J., Second Treatise on Government [1689]: Chapters II; III; VII §77; VIII §95-99.119-122; IX §123-126
· Kant I., The Science of Right [1790], Part 2, Section 1, §43-45
· 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
· Simmons J., Justification and Legitimacy (1999)
· 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)
· Kant I., An Answer to the Question "What is Enlightenment?" [1784]
· Rawls J. Political Liberalism (1993), Chapter (Lecture) 6
· Christiano T., The Constitution of Equality (2008), Chapter 6
· Estlund D., Democratic Authority (2009), Chapter 1
· Urbinati N., Unpolitical Democracy (2010)
· Pettit P., Depoliticizing Democracy (2004)
· Audi R., Democratic Authority and the Separation of Church and State (2011), Chapters 1, 4
· Swaine L., The Liberal Conscience (2006), Chapters 1,3
· Baiasu S., Toleration and Pragmatism (2017)
· Vallier K., On Distinguishing Publicly Justified Polities from Modus Vivendi Regimes (2015)
· Sala R., Modus Vivendi and The Motivation for Compliance (2019)
· Pineda E., Seeing Like an Activist. Civil Disobedience and the Civil Rights Movement (2021), Chap.1
· Celikates R., Rethinking Civil Disobedience as a Practice of Contestation-Beyond the Liberal Paradigm (2016), 42-43
· Scheuerman W. E., Civil Disobedience (2018) Chapter 2
· Chambers C., Sex Culture and Justice (2008), Chapter 4
· Moller Okin S., Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women? (1999), Replies by Honing, Al-Hibri, Gilman, Parekh, Nusbaum
b) Non-attendant students
- Material for the paper and the oral exam:
· Hobbes T., Leviathan [1651]: Chapters XIV, XVII
· Locke J., Second Treatise on Government [1689]: Chapters II; III; VII §77; VIII §95-99.119-122; IX §123-126
· Kant I., The Science of Right [1790], Part 2, Section 1, §43-45
· 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
· Simmons J., Justification and Legitimacy (1999)
· 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)
· Kant I., An Answer to the Question "What is Enlightenment?" [1784]
· Rawls J. Political Liberalism (1993), Chapter (Lecture) 6
· Christiano T., The Constitution of Equality (2008), Chapter 6
· Estlund D., Democratic Authority (2009), Chapter 1
· Urbinati N., Unpolitical Democracy (2010)
· Pettit P., Depoliticizing Democracy (2004)
· Audi R., Democratic Authority and the Separation of Church and State (2011), Chapters 1, 4
· Swaine L., The Liberal Conscience (2006), Chapters 1,3
· Baiasu S., Toleration and Pragmatism (2017)
· Vallier K., On Distinguishing Publicly Justified Polities from Modus Vivendi Regimes (2015)
· Sala R., Modus Vivendi and The Motivation for Compliance (2019)
· Pineda E., Seeing Like an Activist. Civil Disobedience and the Civil Rights Movement (2021), Chap.1
· Celikates R., Rethinking Civil Disobedience as a Practice of Contestation-Beyond the Liberal Paradigm (2016), 42-43
· Scheuerman W. E., Civil Disobedience (2018) Chapter 2
· Chambers C., Sex Culture and Justice (2008), Chapter 4
· Moller Okin S., Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women? (1999), Replies by Honing, Al-Hibri, Gilman, Parekh, Nusbaum
· Beetham D., The Legitimation of Power, 1991: Chapters 1
· Chambers S., Theories of Political Justification, 2010
· Erman E., Moller N., Political Legitimacy in the Real Normative World, 2015
· Simmons J., Justification and Legitimacy, 2000: Chapters 6, 7
· Stilz A., Liberal Loyalty, 2009: Chapters 3, 4
· Miller D., Political Philosophy for Earthlings, in Political Theory, 2008
· Mill J. S., On Liberty [1859]: Chapter 1
· Hume D., On original contract [1752]
· Raz J., Authority and Justification, 1985
· Rawls J., Political Liberalism, 1993: Chapter (Lecture) 4: §1, 2, 4, 5
· Rawls J., The Idea of Public Reason Revised, 1997
· Newey G., After Politics, 2001: Chapters 7 ("Appendix" excluded)
· Enoch D., Against Public Reason, 2015
· Cohen J., An Epistemic Conception of Democracy, 1986
· Manin B., Stein E., Mansbridge J., On Legitimacy and Political Deliberation, 1987
Please note: Readings which are difficult to find will be available on the Ariel website of the course.
a) Attendant students
For attendant students, readings are expected to be completed in advance of the relevant session devoted to presentations and following discussion.
- Material for the presentation, the paper and the oral exam:
· Hobbes T., Leviathan [1651]: Chapters XIV, XVII
· Locke J., Second Treatise on Government [1689]: Chapters II; III; VII §77; VIII §95-99.119-122; IX §123-126
· Kant I., The Science of Right [1790], Part 2, Section 1, §43-45
· 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
· Simmons J., Justification and Legitimacy (1999)
· 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)
· Kant I., An Answer to the Question "What is Enlightenment?" [1784]
· Rawls J. Political Liberalism (1993), Chapter (Lecture) 6
· Christiano T., The Constitution of Equality (2008), Chapter 6
· Estlund D., Democratic Authority (2009), Chapter 1
· Urbinati N., Unpolitical Democracy (2010)
· Pettit P., Depoliticizing Democracy (2004)
· Audi R., Democratic Authority and the Separation of Church and State (2011), Chapters 1, 4
· Swaine L., The Liberal Conscience (2006), Chapters 1,3
· Baiasu S., Toleration and Pragmatism (2017)
· Vallier K., On Distinguishing Publicly Justified Polities from Modus Vivendi Regimes (2015)
· Sala R., Modus Vivendi and The Motivation for Compliance (2019)
· Pineda E., Seeing Like an Activist. Civil Disobedience and the Civil Rights Movement (2021), Chap.1
· Celikates R., Rethinking Civil Disobedience as a Practice of Contestation-Beyond the Liberal Paradigm (2016), 42-43
· Scheuerman W. E., Civil Disobedience (2018) Chapter 2
· Chambers C., Sex Culture and Justice (2008), Chapter 4
· Moller Okin S., Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women? (1999), Replies by Honing, Al-Hibri, Gilman, Parekh, Nusbaum
b) Non-attendant students
- Material for the paper and the oral exam:
· Hobbes T., Leviathan [1651]: Chapters XIV, XVII
· Locke J., Second Treatise on Government [1689]: Chapters II; III; VII §77; VIII §95-99.119-122; IX §123-126
· Kant I., The Science of Right [1790], Part 2, Section 1, §43-45
· 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
· Simmons J., Justification and Legitimacy (1999)
· 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)
· Kant I., An Answer to the Question "What is Enlightenment?" [1784]
· Rawls J. Political Liberalism (1993), Chapter (Lecture) 6
· Christiano T., The Constitution of Equality (2008), Chapter 6
· Estlund D., Democratic Authority (2009), Chapter 1
· Urbinati N., Unpolitical Democracy (2010)
· Pettit P., Depoliticizing Democracy (2004)
· Audi R., Democratic Authority and the Separation of Church and State (2011), Chapters 1, 4
· Swaine L., The Liberal Conscience (2006), Chapters 1,3
· Baiasu S., Toleration and Pragmatism (2017)
· Vallier K., On Distinguishing Publicly Justified Polities from Modus Vivendi Regimes (2015)
· Sala R., Modus Vivendi and The Motivation for Compliance (2019)
· Pineda E., Seeing Like an Activist. Civil Disobedience and the Civil Rights Movement (2021), Chap.1
· Celikates R., Rethinking Civil Disobedience as a Practice of Contestation-Beyond the Liberal Paradigm (2016), 42-43
· Scheuerman W. E., Civil Disobedience (2018) Chapter 2
· Chambers C., Sex Culture and Justice (2008), Chapter 4
· Moller Okin S., Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women? (1999), Replies by Honing, Al-Hibri, Gilman, Parekh, Nusbaum
· Beetham D., The Legitimation of Power, 1991: Chapters 1
· Chambers S., Theories of Political Justification, 2010
· Erman E., Moller N., Political Legitimacy in the Real Normative World, 2015
· Simmons J., Justification and Legitimacy, 2000: Chapters 6, 7
· Stilz A., Liberal Loyalty, 2009: Chapters 3, 4
· Miller D., Political Philosophy for Earthlings, in Political Theory, 2008
· Mill J. S., On Liberty [1859]: Chapter 1
· Hume D., On original contract [1752]
· Raz J., Authority and Justification, 1985
· Rawls J., Political Liberalism, 1993: Chapter (Lecture) 4: §1, 2, 4, 5
· Rawls J., The Idea of Public Reason Revised, 1997
· Newey G., After Politics, 2001: Chapters 7 ("Appendix" excluded)
· Enoch D., Against Public Reason, 2015
· Cohen J., An Epistemic Conception of Democracy, 1986
· Manin B., Stein E., Mansbridge J., On Legitimacy and Political Deliberation, 1987
Please note: Readings which are difficult to find will be available on the Ariel website of the course.
Moduli o unità didattiche
Unit 1
SPS/01 - FILOSOFIA POLITICA - CFU: 6
Lezioni: 40 ore
Docente:
Pasquali Francesca
Unit 2
SPS/01 - FILOSOFIA POLITICA - CFU: 6
Lezioni: 40 ore
Docente:
Sala Roberta
Docente/i
Ricevimento:
Prossimi ricevimenti: mercoledì 14 maggio, 18:00-19:30, online e in presenza; martedì 20 maggio, 14:30-16:00, online; mercoledì 21 maggio, 15:00-16:30, in presenza; mercoledì 28 maggio, 14:30-16:00, in presenza; mercoledì 28 maggio, 16:00-17:30.
Non è richiesto un appuntamento per partecipare al ricevimento, che si svolge online (via MS Teams: https://tinyurl.com/549e8pje) o in presenza (Dip. Scienze sociali e politiche, II piano, stanza 205). Info per laureandi al seguente link: