Fall 2015 Contemporary Political Thought (Political
Science 510)
Meeting place and time LSS-244 Thursdays 4:00 PM – 6:40 PM
Professor Farid Abdel-Nour
Office NH-110
Contact (619)594-6598, abdelnou@mail.sdsu.edu
Office Hours Tuesdays and Thursdays 12:45 PM-1:45PM and by appointment
Prerequisite
This is a capstone senior seminar. Students are required to have successfully completed
the prerequisite for this course which is at least ONE of the following Political Theory
courses: Pol S 301A, Pol S 301B, Pol S 302, Pol S 305, Pol S 406, Pol S 605, or an
equivalent Political Theory course at another institution approved by the instructor.
Description
This course focuses on the critical tradition of social and political thought that emerged in
the twentieth century and that remains pertinent to our ability to think critically about
politics today. The grand political theories of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries
(most notably Kant’s, Hegel’s, and Marx’s) in which Reason was treated as a sure guide
for action and in which History had a clear, discernable, ever-progressing direction;
began to lose their hold by the turn of the twentieth century. Just as in the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries European thinkers increasingly lost faith in the Christian worldview
as an overarching framework for thinking about politics, similarly in the twentieth and
twenty-first centuries they increasingly lost faith in the theories of Reason and History
that had come to replace it. As a result, contemporary political theorists face the
formidable challenge of offering some orientation to our thinking about politics in the
absence of solid uncontroversial anchors.
We begin the course by reading some brief excerpts from Friedrich Nietzsche’s
provocative work. We then proceed to read the work of Max Weber who offers us a
diagnosis of our world as disenchanted and fractured, devoid of overarching meaning,
and characterized by impersonal and imprisoning structures. The experiences of the
twentieth century led many thinkers to take this strain of Weber’s thought very much to
heart. The two world wars, the horrors of the Holocaust, the rise of Stalinism, the
entrenchment of state bureaucracies everywhere, the uncontrolled expansion of
Capitalism, the commercialization of ever increasing spheres of life, and the sense that
the latter trends show no signs of abating; all this led many contemporary political
thinkers to take a radically critical view of the world we live in.
By the middle of the twentieth century a number of political thinkers had concluded that
contemporary political and economic conditions present potentially insurmountable
obstacles for the possibility of a worthwhile human existence. Capitalism and the modern
state, the two interrelated structures that through centuries-long processes of development
and expansion have come to shape the political and economic context of our lives across
1
the globe, may have become giant prisons in which humanity is inescapably trapped.
Indeed, some of those thinkers argued that the rational capacity that used to be considered
the source of hope for humanity in previous centuries may have yielded a nightmare
instead. Even our ability to think critically may have become so deeply compromised that
it is in danger of disappearing altogether as we become cogs in bureaucratic and profitmaking machines, and become compliant consumers of ready-made schemas of thought.
Acutely cognizant of these challenges, Hannah Arendt struggled to find some hope in the
midst of despair. We read her deeply influential book The Human Condition in which she
presents a political theory that identifies promising possibilities for a future politics,
while acknowledging the overwhelming challenges we face in realizing those
possibilities. She draws inspiration from her understanding of ancient Greek politics and
uses that as a vehicle for imagining the conditions of a meaningful future politics.
After reading Arendt we read the work of Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno who
could not justify adopting a hopeful attitude. They saw modern politics and society as
deeply damaged and distorted, probably beyond repair. Theirs was a radically critical
theory. The only hope to which they could attach themselves was that of keeping alive in
us at least the ability to recognize how desperate our situation is and of maintaining a
vague sense that things could have been—and might still be—radically different. The
thinker we read next is Michel Foucault who to an extent followed Horkheimer’s and
Adorno’s general direction. His focus is on understanding the insidious ways in which
power shapes not only our political and social institutions, structures, and practices but
also the ways in which we organize our thinking, and our very experience of ourselves in
the world.
After reading Foucault we proceed to read the work of Jürgen Habermas, perhaps the
most revered living philosopher, political thinker, sociologist, and intellectual. He
emerged out of the tradition of critical theory of Horkheimer and Adorno, but was
inspired by Arendt’s impulse to find sources of hope for contemporary society and
politics. He made it his life’s mission to retrieve what is valuable from the Enlightenment
project. His is a theory that seeks to vindicate the promise of modernity. He offers a
theory of society and politics that encompasses some of the critical insights of his
teachers (especially about capitalism and administrative bureaucracy), but that identifies
the positive moment in the project of modernity and in the rationalization processes that
led us to where we are today. This hope, according to him, lies in the very phenomenon
of communication, and more specifically for politics it lies in the promise of democratic
deliberation.
We end the course by considering the work of the Cambridge political thinker Raymond
Geuss who reflects on the limits of political thinking and on what it can do for real
politics.
2
Class Requirements
Attendance
Attendance is mandatory. Students who miss more than two classes during the entire
semester risk failing the course. In a class of this size the dynamics change significantly
when someone is absent. For this reason it is extremely important for students to
minimize absences and to always come prepared to participate actively in class
discussion.
Punctuality
Our meetings begin at 4:00 PM sharp and do not end until 6:40 PM. Students who walk
in late cause serious disruption, as do students who leave early. As a result every two late
entrances or early departures will be counted as one absence.
Oral and written class participation (quality and quantity) 20%
Four Reading Responses (2 pages each) 20%
Paper 1 First Draft and Comments 5%
Paper 1 Final Draft (8-10 double-spaced pages) 20%
Paper 2 First Draft and Comments 5%
Paper 2 Final Draft (12-14 double-spaced pages) 30%
Submission of all out-of-class written work
All papers and reading responses must be double-spaced, in Times New Roman font in
12 pitch and with 1-inch margins.
All written assignments in this course must be submitted both electronically (via
Blackboard’s Turnitin) as well as in an identical hard copy. Work that is not submitted
for plagiarism review will not be accepted.
Academic Dishonesty
Cheating and plagiarism are serious crimes. Students who are caught engaging in these
activities will receive an automatic F for the course and will be reported to the
appropriate university authorities.
According to the SDSU Senate “Plagiarism shall be defined as the act of incorporating
ideas, words, or specific substance of another, whether purchased, borrowed, or otherwise
obtained, and submitting same to the University as one’s own work to fulfill academic
requirements without giving credit to the appropriate source. Plagiarism shall include but
not be limited to (a) submitting work, either in part or in whole, completed by another;
(b) omitting footnotes for ideas, statements, facts, or conclusions that belong to another;
(c) omitting quotation marks when quoting directly from another, whether it be a
paragraph, sentence, or part thereof; (d) close and lengthy paraphrasing of the writings of
3
another; (e) submitting another person’s artistic works, such as musical compositions,
photographs, paintings, drawings, or sculptures; and (f) submitting as one’s own work
papers purchased from research companies.”(Source:
http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/senate/policy/pfacademics.html#cheating)
Required Readings
The following books are required and are available at the University Bookstore.
Max Weber: the Vocation Lectures. Eds. David Owen and Tracy B. Strong. Trans.
Rodney Livingstone. 2004. Indianapolis. Hackett Publishers.
Hannah Arendt The Human Condition. Second Edition. 1998. Chicago. The University of
Chicago Press.
Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno. Dialectic of Enlightenment. Ed. Gunzelin Schmid
Noerr. Trans. Emund Jephcott. 2002. Standford. Stanford University Press.
The Foucault Reader Ed. Paul Rabinow. 2010. New York. Vintage Books.
Additional required readings are available on Blackboard. Students are required to bring
their own copies of the appropriate texts to class as class discussions are based on direct
engagement with the texts.
________________________________________________________________________
In the Shadow of Nietzsche
Thursday August 27
Introduction
Diagnosing the Contemporary World
Thursday September 3
Read from the book Max Weber: the Vocation Lectures the following pages:
pp.ix-xi
pp.11 [“These preconditions….]–31
pp. xix-xxi
pp. xxx-xxxiv
pp. 32-58 [“…election of the leader”]
pp. 75 [“It is not possible to see today…”–94
pp. xxxviii-lxii.
There is no class meeting on this day. The Professor is at the American Political
Science Association conference.
4
After reading all of the above assigned sections all students are required to write a twopage response answering any ONE of the following questions. Each response must
emerge out of a direct engagement with the assigned text.
i)
What according to Weber are the different ways in which an individual
can make politics her/his vocation? What are the differences between
them?
ii)
What according to Weber is the difference between the “ethics of
conviction” and the “ethics of responsibility?” How are these two ethical
orientations related to politics?
iii)
What according to Weber are some of the characteristics of the modern
state?
Thursday September 10
Come to class prepared to discuss the Max Weber readings of the previous week.
The two-page response on Weber is due on turitin via Blackboard no later than 2 PM.
An identical hard copy is due to the instructor at the very beginning of the class meeting.
It is recommended that students begin reading the Hannah Arendt book The Human
Condition since the number of pages required the following two weeks is high.
Saving the Promise of Politics
Thursday September 17
Read from the Hannah Arendt book The Human Condition and come to class prepared to
discuss the following pages:
pp.vii-174.
A two-page response is due from Students whose last name begins M-Z. Students are
free to write their response in engagement with any idea in the text that interests them.
Students who prefer more guidance can write on the following topic:
What, according to Arendt, is the difference between “labor” and “work” and why does
the distinction matter to her?
The response is due electronically in Turnitin by 2 PM. An identical hard copy is due to
the professor at the beginning of class.
Thursday September 24
Read from the Hannah Arendt book The Human Condition and come to class prepared to
discuss the following pages:
pp.175-325.
5
A two-page response is due from Students whose last name begins A-L. Students are
free to write their response in engagement with any idea in the text that interests them.
Students who prefer more guidance can write on the following topic:
What, according to Arendt, is “action” and how is it relevant for thinking about politics?
The response is due electronically in Turnitin by 2 PM. An identical hard copy is due to
the professor at the beginning of class.
Critical Theory: the Value of the Negative
Thursday October 1
Read from the Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno book Dialectic of Enlightenment
and come prepared to discuss the following pages:
pp. xi-34
pp.35-40
pp.45-49
pp.60-62
pp.63-92
A two-page response is due from Students whose last name begins M-Z. Students are
free to write their response in engagement with any idea in the text that interests them.
Students who prefer more guidance can write on the following topic:
What, according to Adorno and Horkheimer does the story of “Juliette” illustrate?
The response is due electronically in Turnitin by 2 PM. An identical hard copy is due to
the professor at the beginning of class.
Thursday October 8
Read from the Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno book Dialectic of Enlightenment
and come prepared to discuss the following pages:
pp.94-136
pp.161-172
pp.173-175 [“…and that is that.”]
pp.178-180
pp.182 [“Avalanche…”]-187 [“…cannot avert”]
pp.197-199
pp.203 [“Thought”]
pp.212-214
A two-page response is due from Students whose last name begins A-L. Students are
free to write their response in engagement with any idea in the text that interests them.
Students who prefer more guidance can write on the following topic:
6
What, according to Adorno and Horkheimer are some of the characteristics of the
“culture industry” that they find troubling
The response is due electronically in Turnitin by 2 PM. An identical hard copy is due to
the professor at the beginning of class.
Thursday October 15
Mandatory in-class peer review. An electronic copy of a full-length draft of paper 1 is
due on turnitin at 2:00 PM. Two hard copies of the identical draft are due in class at
4:00 PM sharp. The minimum draft length is 8 double-spaced pages.
Students are required to read and comment on three student papers following the
instructions in the peer-review guide provided in class by the professor. Students who do
not have a draft ready are not allowed to participate in this process.
Monday October 19
Final draft of paper 1 is due at 3:00 PM electronically in turnitin and in hard copy in the
professor’s mailbox in NH-126. The hard copy must be handed in as follows: the final
draft on top, underneath it the draft that peers commented on, and at the bottom the three
peer comments the author received.
Thursday October 22
Read from the book The Foucault Reader Ed. Paul Rabinow:
pp. 3-27
pp. 51-100
Thursday October 29
Read from the book The Foucault Reader Ed. Paul Rabinow:
pp. 170-238
pp. 258-272
pp. 292-329
A two-page response is due from Students whose last name begins M-Z. Students must
write their response in engagement with any idea in the text that interests them.
Thursday November 5
Read from Blackboard Michel Foucault “Omnes et singulatim:”
pp. 298-325
Read from the book The Foucault Reader Ed. Paul Rabinow:
pp. 373-390
Read from Blackboard Thomas McCarthy’s Introduction to Jürgen Habermas’s The
Theory of Communicative Action:
pp. vii-xxxix
7
A two-page response is due from Students whose last name begins A-L. Students must
write their response in engagement with any idea in any of the texts that interests them.
Retrieving the Project of Modernity
Thursday November 12
Read from Blackboard excerpt from Jürgen Habermas The Theory of Communicative
Action Volume One. Reason and the Rationalization of Society:
pp.339-354
Read from Blackboard excerpts from Jürgen Habermas The Theory of Communicative
Action Volume Two. Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason:
pp. 303-312
pp. 318-331
This week all students should begin developing their final paper topic and are strongly
encouraged to meet with the professor to refine and shape their ideas.
Thursday November 19
Read from Blackboard Jürgen Habermas “Three Normative Models of Democracy:”
pp. 239-252.
Read from Blackboard Jürgen Habermas “On the Internal Relation between the Rule of
Law and Democracy:”
pp. 253-264
Read from Blackboard Jürgen Habermas “The Concept of Human Dignity and the
Realistic Utopia of Human Rights:”
pp. 71-100
A one-page proposal for the final paper is due at the beginning of class from all
students.
Let’s Get Real
Thursday December 3
Read from Blackboard Raymond Geuss “Outside Ethics:”
pp. 40-66
Read from Blackboard Raymond Geuss excerpt from the Preface to Politics and the
Imagination:
pp. vii-viii
Read from Blackboard Raymond Geuss “Moralism and Realpolitik:”
pp.31-42
8
Read from Blackboard Raymond Geuss “The Wisdom of Oedipus and the Idea of a
Moral Cosmos:”
pp. 195-222.
Thursday December 10
Mandatory in-class peer review. An electronic copy of a full-length draft of paper 1 is
due on turnitin at 2:00 PM. Two hard copies of the identical draft are due in class at 4:00
PM sharp. The minimum draft length is 8 double-spaced pages.
Students are required to read and comment on three student papers following the
instructions in the peer-review guide provided in class by the professor. Students who do
not have a draft ready are not allowed to participate in this process.
Thursday December 17
Final draft of final paper is due at 3:00 PM electronically in turnitin and in hard copy in
the professor’s mailbox in NH-126. The hard copy must be handed in as follows: the final
draft on top, underneath it the draft that peers commented on, and at the bottom the three
peer comments the author received.
Note: this Syllabus is subject to revision.
9