1. Prior to the 19th century, democracy was perhaps the least esteemed of the general forms of government. This disdain for democracy is reflected in the attitudes evinced in the Western political theory canon.
To what extent were ancient and early modern political theorists justified in their suspicion of democratic forms of government? What are the strongest arguments against democracy raised by ancient and early modern political theory? What responses, if any, can democratic theories offer in answer to the strongest objections to them?
Be sure to engage texts from both ancient and early modern political theory, including at least some consideration of Plato and/or Aristotle, and Hobbes and/or Burke.
2. The concept of a state distinct from the society it represents is a modern innovation.
Ancient people (and their early modern republican imitators) thought of themselves as citizens, not of states, but of the more comprehensive social structures of their polis or civitas . Modern theorists, by contrast, conceive of the state as a socially constructed, impartial lawgiver and arbiter, which rules its subjects within a defined sphere and (at least in some sense) by means of their consent.
What is gained and what is lost in the transition from the ancient model of city-states or republics to the modern conception of the state? Which of the rival modern accounts of the construction and governance of the state best captures its most significant conceptual qualities?
Be sure to engage texts from both ancient and early modern political theory, including at least some consideration of ancient Greek political philosophy and/or Roman and
Renaissance political theory, as well as such theorists of the modern state as Hobbes,
Locke, Hume, Rousseau, and/or Constant.
3. In the U.S., the state mandates that all children be educated up to a certain age, and according to certain standards.
Sketch as persuasive a libertarian critique of this practice as you can. Then, give as compelling a critique of that libertarian argument as you are able.
Now explain your own view, drawing on relevant texts by at least three of the theorists whose work you have studied. What role, if any, should the state play in influencing educational institutions and practices? Why?
4. In 1927, John Dewey identified as one of the most pressing problems for twentieth century democracy what he called A the eclipse of the public.
@ What did Dewey mean by A the eclipse of the public @ ? What is A the public, @ and what did Dewey claim had happened to it?

Is the problem that Dewey identified in 1927 still a problem for twenty-first century democracy? If so, why? What are the principal causes of this problem? What should be done about it?
If not, why not? Is it the case that Dewey was wrong (and if so, how so?), or has something important changed since the early twentieth century (and if so, what)?
Which thinkers have been most important in helping us understand the problem of
A the eclipse of the public @ in the years since Dewey wrote about it?
5. A The greatest threat to democracy today comes from global capital. And yet political theory is strangely silent about the nature of this threat and what should be done about it. Political theorists attend almost exclusively to questions of democratic political institutions and practices. Unfortunately, these are meaningless, because the most important collective decisions are made by powerful actors who have and who control capital.
@
Evaluate the statement above. Do you agree? Why or why not?
Which political theorists and philosophers do the most to help us understand the relation between global capital and democratic government?
What are some important questions about that relationship that remain unanswered, and how might political theorists help us begin to answer those questions?
6. Among the most basic of democratic principles is that of collective self-governance; democrats argue that people should have a hand in helping make the rules that bind them. Recently, some have made the case that this principle challenges what they characterize as the contingent historic link between, on the one hand democratic institutions and processes, and on the other, the nation-state. So, the question for you is: Should democracy cross state boundaries? If so, (1) why? and (2) how should democracy cross state boundaries B i.e., what might that look like in institutional terms? If not, (1) why not? and (2) what would be a better response to the challenges that globalization poses to the normative logic of democracy? Please be sure to engage relevant texts and to give specific institutional examples.
7. Says A, A Duties of justice are not affected by nation-state boundaries. Membership in national communities is (to borrow Rawls = s phrase) > morally arbitrary = . Our first allegiance should be to all human beings, not to members of our national communities. Hence whatever it is that justice demands, it demands on a global scale.
@
Says B, A You underestimate the importance of national identities to people = s lives, and hence you fail to acknowledge their crucial role in motivating justice. People feel compelled to aid others whom they view as a part of their own A people @ in a way that they simply do not feel compelled to aid strangers. Cosmopolitanism might be a nice way for philosophers to think about justice. But patriotism is a better way to

achieve it.
@
Adjudicate the dispute between A and B . Do duties of justice cross state borders? If so, (1) why? and (2) what are the institutional implications of this view? If not, (1) why not? and (2) what is a better response from the standpoint of theories of justice to the ways in which economic and other forms of globalization render people interdependent and mutually vulnerable across national boundaries? Please be sure to engage relevant texts and to give specific institutional examples.
8. If you had to name the single most important work of ancient political theory, what would you choose, and why? In elaborating your response, please explain (1) how this work was shaped by the social and political context in which it was written, and
(2) how considering the problem(s) it addresses from the vantage point of the ancients advances our understanding of those problems today. More generally, explain why this work is so important. What enduring insights does it provide? In what ways has it shaped later work in the field? What important questions has it raised that continue to have relevance for the study of political theory? Finally, explain how your own reading of this work has shaped the way you think about and approach the study of politics.
9. If you had to name the single most important work of early modern political theory, what would you choose, and why? In elaborating your response, please explain (1) how this work is shaped by, and how it departs from, relevant traditions in ancient political philosophy; (2) how it was shaped by the social and political context in which it was written, and (3) how considering the problem(s) it addresses from the vantage point of the early moderns advances our understanding of those problems today. More generally, explain why this work is so important. What enduring insights does it provide? In what ways has it shaped later work in the field? What important questions has it raised that continue to have relevance for the study of political theory? Finally, explain how your own reading of this work has shaped the way you think about and approach the study of politics.
10. If you had to name the single most important work of either nineteenth or twentieth century political theory, what would you choose, and why? In elaborating your response, please explain (1) how this work is shaped by, and how it departs from, relevant traditions in ancient and early modern political philosophy; (2) how it was shaped by the social and political context in which it was written, and (3) how considering the problem(s) it addresses from the vantage point of the period when it was written advances our understanding of those problems today. More generally, explain why this work is so important. What enduring insights does it provide? In what ways has it shaped later work in the field? What important questions has it raised that continue to have relevance for the study of political theory? Finally, explain how your own reading of this work has shaped the way you think about and approach the study of politics.
11. Identify one important question or problem in one of the other major fields of political science that political theory can help to answer. In elaborating your response, be sure to (1) explain what the problem is and why it is important; (2)

identify some key method(s), tradition(s), or approach(es) in political theory that would contribute something useful to the process of addressing this question or problem; and (3) sketch a preliminary program for introducing this theoretical method, tradition, or approach to the study of the problem. Please be specific. For example, which works in particular provide the best example of the approach or tradition you identify? How exactly might that approach/tradition be used to advance our understanding of the problem on which your response focuses?
12. This question invites you to intervene in recent debates about A problem-driven @ v.
A method-driven @ research in political science. First, in your view, is the criticism of method-driven research fair? Why or why not? What are the advantages and the disadvantages of so-called method-driven research? What are the advantages and the disadvantages of problem-driven research? Second, can political theory be methoddriven? How? Please give specific examples. Should it be? Why or why not? And finally, can political theory be problem-driven? How? Please give specific examples. Should it be? Why or why not?
13. A In truth, political theory is not political science. It is a humanistically-oriented field that happens (by historical accident) to be housed in a social scientific department.
Political theory consists in literary and historical analyses loosely coupled with speculation about normative matters. It has little to nothing to do with scientific inquiry into political institutions and processes.
@
Evaluate the statement above. Do you agree? If so, explain why, and say more about what separates political theory from the rest of political science. In addition, explain what should be done about the gulf that separates the two. Should political theory be redefined, e.g.? If so, how? Should empirical political science be redefined? If so, how? If you disagree, explain why. What is it that unites political theory with empirical political science? How can the exchange between political theory and the rest of the discipline be made more fruitful? Please be specific, providing examples to illustrate your claims.
14. In 1979, John Dunn characterized democratic theory as comprised of two strands: the
A dismally ideological @ and the A blatantly utopian.
@
Was Dunn right when he made this claim in 1979? Why or why not?
Does his statement accurately characterize democratic theory at the start of the 21 st century? If not, what has changed? If so, what should change?
15. Deliberative democrats claim to re-think democratic theory in ways that improve both our theorizing about democratic practice and our capacity to construct genuinely democratic institutions.
Do they? If so, how? What important normative and practical insights do they articulate that other democratic theorists overlook? If not, why not? In what specific ways have deliberative democrats failed?

16. The political theories of Jurgen Habermas, Hannah Arendt, and Nancy Fraser, although differing along important dimensions, are united by a concern with the vitality of the democratic public sphere.
Explain how each of these three theorists conceptualizes the public sphere. What principal concerns animate each account? What are the strengths and the weaknesses of each?
Then, outline the insights and/or the lessons that might be gleaned from these theories by researchers working on problems relating to either (a) civil society in the United
States or (b) global civil society.
17. Is the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict principally a problem of recognition or distribution?
What would a just resolution to the conflict entail?
How do you know it would be just?
18. Says A, A One of the major mistakes of liberal political theory is to assign political rights exclusively to individuals. Because people often experience oppression, not as atomistic individuals, but as members of particular social groups, groups also need rights.
@
Says B, A Yours is a dangerous view that essentializes constructed group identities.
There is no form of oppression that cannot be rectified via the fair assignment of equal rights to all individuals.
@
Adjudicate their dispute, explaining what you find persuasive and unpersuasive in each claim, and elaborating your own position.
19. Liberal theorists and activists in the United States and elsewhere have argued that gay couples should have the legal right to marry.
How might Wendy Brown, Judith Butler, William Connolly, Michel Foucault (or another poststructuralist theorist whose work you find relevant) critique this theoretical perspective and political strategy?
What alternative theoretical tools might these theorists suggest for thinking about the movement for legal recognition of same-sex unions? What alternative political strategies might they recommend?
Which (if any) poststructuralist insights are useful for theorists concerned with this and related questions? for activists? Why?
20. A State of nature theory and social contract theory are dead and should be left in their graves.
Theorists such as Rawls and Nozick make a mistake when they try to resurrect methods long discredited for their historical inaccuracy and their philosophical speciousness.
@

Evaluate the statement above. Do you agree? If so, explain why, and identify alternative methods that political theorists should use to elaborate their arguments. If not, explain why not, and identify the ways in which you think state of nature theory and social contract theory can contribute to systematic theorizing about politics.
Use specific examples to elucidate your claims.
21. As of late, many political theorists have argued for a closer relationship between the elaboration of critical political theory and the empirical study of politics.
Should political theorists engage the empirical study of political problems? If so, how? What role should empirical findings and analyses play in theory?
If not, why not? What are the dangers or the pitfalls of using the empirical study of politics to elaborate theoretical arguments?
Use specific examples to elucidate your claims.
22. Choose any ONE of the following thinkers, and outline his or her key contributions to contemporary political theory:
Wollstonecraft, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche
In elaborating your response you should (a) identify at least three theorists who have usefully appropriated this philosopher = s insights; (b) explain in what specific ways
(s)he has inspired their work, and in what ways they depart from his or her thought; and (c) explain which specific aspects of this philosopher = s work contemporary theorists should devote more attention to, how they should do so, and why.
23. In the Politics , Aristotle argues that the excellent democratic citizen has the capacity to rule and to be ruled in turn. What does he mean by this? In what ways does
Aristotle = s understanding of democratic citizenship differ from most modern conceptions? What, in your view, are the most important factors that account for the difference?
24. In recent years, some social theorists and social scientists have argued for
A multicultural @ conceptions of citizenship. Why? What are the best arguments for multicultural citizenship? What institutional implications follow from this position?
Is the multiculturalist position persuasive? Why or why not?
25. In recent years, some social theorists and social scientists have argued for transnational or A cosmopolitan @ conceptions of citizenship. Why? What are the best arguments for cosmopolitan citizenship? What institutional implications follow from this position? Is the cosmopolitan position persuasive? Why or why not?

26. In both contemporary and historical works, political philosophers have argued for a range of approaches to dealing with human social difference. Some make the case for tolerating difference, others for recognizing difference, and still others for deliberating across difference.
Outlining the central claims of the philosopher(s) you regard as the best proponent(s) of toleration, recognition, and deliberation, identify the advantages and the drawbacks of each of these approaches. What, by your own view, is the best way for states to treat social difference? Why?
27. In recent years, many democratic theorists have argued for an emphasis on deliberation in political decision-making.
Why? What are the strongest argument(s) in favor of deliberative democracy? What are the most persuasive critiques? In your own view, what are the advantages and what are the drawbacks of deliberative politics? In what ways and under what conditions (if any) should political institutions be deliberative?
28. Says A: A Government should protect the property rights of the governed. Efforts by the state to redistribute property are, by definition, illegitimate.
@
Says B: A I could not disagree more. Justice requires that states intervene in markets, distributing society = s resources to ensure the well-being of the least well off.
@
Write the most persuasive argument you can supporting each of these positions, in each case developing and supporting the claim and anticipating and responding to counter-arguments. Then, outline your own view: what role, if any, do you think government should play in redistributing income, wealth, and other resources? Why?
29. In the Second Treatise , Locke asks how government can be legitimate. How does he answer this question? What insights does his answer generate, and what are its shortcomings? What have we learned since Locke wrote the Second Treatise that helps us answer this question? What haven = t we learned, and why? To what enduring Lockean insights (if any) should we devote more attention?
30. Why, in your view, has utilitarianism fallen out of favor with contemporary theorists?
What remains of value in utilitarian thought? What are its shortcomings? To what enduring utilitarian insights (if any) should we devote more attention? Why? (In elaborating your response, it would be wise to consider multiple utilitarianisms, e.g. that of Bentham as well as that of J.S. Mill.)
31. Why, in your view, has Marxism fallen out of favor with contemporary theorists?
What remains of value in Marx = s thought? What are its shortcomings? To what enduring Marxian insights (if any) should we devote more attention? Why?