International Political Theory: Theoretical Approaches to World Politics
Poli.Sci. 3983 – Fall 2010
Prof: Dr. Geoffrey Whitehall
Time: Tuesday and Thursday 3:00-4:30 in BAC 235
Office: BAC 215
Office Hours: Tuesday and Thursday 11:30-12:00, Thursday 1-2 pm or by appointment
Contact: g.whitehall@acadiau.ca
Phone: 902-585-1288
Website: http://polisci.acadiau.ca/~gwhiteha/Site/Welcome.html
Course Description:
This course explores the core theoretical dilemmas of world politics. The texts that we explore in this
course are either classics in international relations circles or are greatly influencing contemporary
conversations and will therefore likely become classics. We do not study classic texts because they are
“classics;” we read these texts because they continue to problematitize our thought worlds. In this sense,
we are not only exploring world politics in the traditional sense of contemporary and historical accounts
of sovereignty, war, peace, security, law, strategy, power and justice; but we are also exploring the
politics of the world or, in other words, how we constitute the world(s) in which we live. The world has
never been what it is or what it was. To these ends, we will evoke many different standpoints (realist,
liberal, marxist, feminist, constructivist, postmodernist, poststructuralist, postcolonialist) to engage these
texts. However, we will also let these texts demand that we re-evaluate those disciplinary standpoints to
which we have become accustomed.
Course Expectations:
Theoretical courses are difficult. They are difficult because we tend to think we know what the thinking
mind thinks. When we run up against an opportunity to think otherwise, more often than not, it is easier
to go to sleep than to awaken to the challenge of thinking. Thinking is exhausting; it is a disturbing
practice.
Political theory courses are also difficult because they require a lot of reading. As in other theory
courses, we will be reading primary texts rather than contemporary analysis of these texts. Reading
primary texts always makes reading challenging. Sometimes the page volume is arduous, but more often,
the difficulty arises because the content must be worked over. Think about reading political theory as
being similar to having a dialogue with someone who just got back from an intense trip. If you just let the
events, pictures, and stories roll over you, the conversation quickly becomes boring. You say, let me look
at the pictures and flip, flip, flip its over. It’s like looking at a day-timer. But if you begin to ask about
their contexts, peculiarities and motivations and you try to make sense of why these stories are
memorable, in a genuine way you can begin to appreciate the traveler’s struggle to express new concepts,
worlds and possibilities. In other words, reading political theory is more about listening that it is about
reading. This hints at an analytic dimension to reading political theory. However, like thinking, listening
is not a passive activity. It implies more than description and reconstruction. Listening is more akin to
writing than it is to receiving. As you listen you are making connections, creating pictures, developing
scenarios and conjuring questions. Therefore, political theory courses are also difficult because reading is
more akin to expression and to creativity. These skills are not always celebrated in academia. So, in
addition to an analytic approach in this course, you will also be expected to recognize how you are
creatively engaging with the texts. Once you understand a text, it is important to push it beyond its
analytic capabilities. Don’t be surprised, however, if the text is always already responding to your
“critical impulses.” The course is therefore attentive to both analytic and critical projects. You will be
expected, in class and in assignments, to explore both of the analytic and critical directions.
A political theory course is also demanding because it requires a lot of time. You will live the phrase
“reading with a dictionary.” Falling behind is simply not an option. Falling behind will make the course
exponentially more difficult for you and less rewarding for others. I suggest that you try to read most of
the course content at the beginning (of the term but then the week) before your other classes become too
demanding.
Make sure to mark or flag the passages that you find interesting, troubling, or
incomprehensible. This way, when we begin to engage with the specific texts, you will be able to follow
how the text can be unpacked in many different directions. This will help with your writing assignments.
You are expected to bring the relevant text to class to follow along and so that you can ground all
questions and statements to the text (i.e. with your finger on the page). The course does not end at the
texts that we explore, you should also be reading beyond the required texts and seeing how these thinkers
take up alternate questions or how other thinkers take up the core questions of the required texts.
Ultimately, your success in this course, and the success of the course for everyone else, depends on your
readings of the texts.
In order to make this class work, everyone must enter these classes with an ethic of mutual respect and
openness. The point of the class is neither to "win" arguments nor to "passively" receive
information. This course will likely raise people’s emotions so please remember that we are all trying to
figure things out and that NO personal attack are rewarding or helpful. We all have differing degrees of
shyness and differing approaches to engaging with issues, so it is important that we all participate in
practices of active listening and engaged participation.
Course Assignments:
1- Participation/attendance: These are mandatory elements of a class and require each other.
Participation is not possible without attending but simply attending does not mean participating.
Participation in the context of a university course requires that you prepare before you speak – do the
readings anduse your journal (see below). Participation should be understood as making a
contribution to the class by making an argument (with supporting evidence), helping a colleague
develop their argument and/or posing a counter argument (with supporting evidence). Participation
requires offering reflective contributions that engage the course materials (i.e., being opinionated is
not participation since it requires neither listening to nor communicating with others). A stellar
contribution is one that develops your opinion into an argument rooted in evidence from the
course texts or other verifiable sources. Participation requires listening but it also requires risking
being heard in public. I do not usually give out participation grade because I consider participation to
be a mandatory component of any class. Nevertheless, some need an extra incentive to participate so
there will be a 5% grade assigned at the end of the course.
2- Weekly Journals: You will be required to write an engaging reflection on the week’s readings. The
journals are really the most important part of the course -- so take them seriously. The journal is like
a critical review. A critical review both summarizes and critically engages with the book (see
expectations). The journal should be a single spaced page. Start with a question that frames an
important argument or concept. Then answer the question citing specific evidence from the text that
builds your argument into a single critical reflection. This second part is neither a further space for
explanation and summarization nor a space for unsupported options. It is a space for logical
argumentation and concrete development of ideas. The journal will be graded on a pass/fail basis.
They are due on Thursdays. Late and emailed journals will not be accepted. Missed journals will
be penalized. Journals will make up 10% of your final grade.
3- First paper: The purpose is to further develop you skills in writing a political theory paper and
exploring the ideas of a specific thinker. Although you are always encouraged to read afar to broaden
your interpretations and understandings, use only the texts from the class in this paper. The key word
that I want you to remember is “UNPACK.” There are to be four parts to your paper. You need to
have all of them in your paper. Think of the paper as a dialogue between you and Machiavelli. Make
sure you note the page and essay that you are quoting from (if you are using a different text a footnote
as to where about the quote is will be required so that I can find/read the quote in context.) It is due
on the Tuesday of week 6 and should be five pages double-spaced in length. These four parts are:
First, turn a core theoretical idea into an interesting and profound question that you would like to pose
to your theorist. Draw the question from the lectures, the text itself, or from contemporary world
events. Note: you will be responsible for answering that question in your paper so don’t make the
question so huge that neither of you can answer it and don’t make it so simple that it would be a
boring dialogue that Machiavelli would despise (remember that you have only five pages). So, in this
first section, you are responsible for clearly and precisely articulating your question and setting out
the key components that will lead to successfully answering the question. Note: most of your
thinking work occurs in this stage. This is when you get to shine as an original thinker.
Second, ask your theorist the question. To do this asking, put your question into the context of the
theoretical apparatus of Machiavelli (use The Prince and The Art of War). You will see right off
whether your question is a worthwhile and relevant question. Use textual references, specific
concepts and supporting arguments to show the way in which Machiavelli formulates an answer to
your question. Don’t weaken or make a straw-person of Machiavelli so that you can make a case for
your genius later. Be fair, generous and respectful to your discussant (it makes for a more devastating
critiques later). So, this section requires meticulous thinking and re-reading in order to create the full
and proper context for Machiavelli’s response. As such, it also requires that you write clearly and
with precision.
Third, restate your question in the light of this answer provided in section 2. Evaluate the
implications of your question in the light of Machiavelli’s answer and project. One purpose here is to
assess the adequacies of the your theorist’s answers and supporting arguments. Note that you are not
evaluating the conclusions as much as you are evaluating the arguments that support certain
conclusions. Another purpose is to create the opportunity or opening for you to answer your own
question in the context of what you have explored in section 2.
Fourth, formulate an answer to your questions and identify the implications for this way of
responding. Note how your answer succeeds where Machiavelli’s fails or where your answer
supports what Machiavelli successfully answers. Make sure to take into account Machiavelli’s
objections to your way of answering the question or his objections to the very question itself. Give
equal time – be fair, generous and respectful. Restate you question and answer in light of what you
have argued and pose some opening questions that hint at the implications of what your paper has
explored.
4- Second Paper: Adapting the structure from essay one, answer the following question: how are
Clauswitz and Thucydides’s projects different? It is due on the Monday of Week 8 and should be
five pages double-spaced in length.
5- Third Paper: Adapting the structure from essay one, answer the following question: Are Kant, Carr
and Lenin examples of Clauswitiz’s emphasis on strategy or Sun Tzu and Machiavelli’s emphasis on
Art? It is due on the Monday of Week 11 and should be five pages double-spaced in length.
6- Final Paper: Adapting the structure from essay one, create and answer your own question that
relates the projects of Weber and Foucault to two of the earlier texts. It is due on the last day of class
and should be five pages double-spaced in length.
Course Assessment:
1- Participation – 5%
2- Weekly Journals – 10%
3- First Paper –10%
4- Second paper – 20%
5- Third Paper – 25%
6- Fourth paper –30%
A Note about Plagiarism:
Acadia does not tolerate plagiarism; instead, it recognizes the responsibility of the individual student for
her/his own education and assumes honesty and integrity in all academic work at the University. This
assumption is the foundation of all intellectual efforts and lies at the heart of this community. In
matriculating at Acadia, each student accepts the responsibility to carry out all academic work with
complete honesty and integrity and supports the application of this principle to others. Plagiarism and
other violations of this principle invite punishment. The adoption or reproduction of ideas or words or
statements of another person as one’s own, without due acknowledgment, is considered plagiarism and
violates this principle. Citing of false or non-existent sources is also a violation. Submission of the same
or similar papers or academic exercises to two different courses for a grade without the explicit
permission of the instructors in both courses is prohibited. If you are suspected of either cheating or
plagiarism and you cannot prove otherwise, you will receive and “F” in the course. All incidences of
plagiarism and cheating will be sent to the University administration and may result in expulsion.
Writing, Tutorial and Disability Services (and a good example of Plagiarism):
The mission of the Acadia Writing Centre, a key component of the new Fountain Learning Commons, is
to help students become the best writers they can be. The Acadia Writing Centre offers a range of
services geared to your particular needs and you are encouraged to use the Centre as often as you
like. Sign up for tutorials, workshops and presentations, browse through our resource library, and hang
out in the Great Hall. Writing tutorials begin at the beginning of term so book early to make sure you get
the help you need to succeed in your courses! The Acadia Tutoring Service strives to ensure that all
Acadia students have access to the services to enable them to achieve academic success. They help by
connecting them with peer tutors who have a strong background in the areas where they need assistance.
They offer both one time (i.e. help with a particular assignment) and long term (i.e. week/biweekly)
tutoring sessions. Acadia tutoring services also acts as a referral service to additional academic resource
that are available to students. If you are a new student with a disability at Acadia, make an appointment to
meet the Academic Support Coordinator at the Student Resource Centre. If you have not already done so,
bring a copy of your assessment. You may also want to visit the Disability Resource Facilitator to discuss
external funding, equipment loans and on site services such as tutors, note takers, scribes or assistive
technology.
Required Texts:









Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War (London: Penguin, 1972)
Sun Tzu, The Art of War (London: Dover, 2001)
Machiavelli, N., The Portable Machiavelli (London: Penguin, 1979)
Von Clausewitz, C., Principles of War (London: Penguin, 1982)
Kant, Immanuel, Political Writings (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1991)
Carr, E.H., The Twenty Years (New York: Palgrave, 1981)
Lenin. V., Essential Works of Lenin (Dover Publication, 1987)
Weber. M., From Max Weber (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1953)
Foucault. M., Society Must be Defended (New York: Picador, 1997)
Grading System:
Percentage
94-100
87-93
80-86
77-79
73-77
70-72
67-69
63-66
60-62
57-59
53-56
50-52
<50
Letter Grade
A+
A
AB+
B
BC+
C
CD+
D
DF
Description
Outstanding in every way
Exceeding expectations
Excellent work
Very good
Good work
Solid performance
Average
Satisfactory
Barely satisfactory
Marginal
Marginally passable
Barely passable
Unsatisfactory
Schedule:
WEEK 1 – Introductions
WEEK 2 – Thucydides

Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War (London: Penguin, 1972)
WEEK 3 – Thucydides

Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War (London: Penguin, 1972)
WEEK 4 – Sun Tzu and Machiavelli

Sun Tzu, The Art of War (London: Dover, 2001) and “The Art of War” in Machiavelli, N., The
Portable Machiavelli (London: Penguin, 1979)
WEEK 5 –Machiavelli

“The Prince” in Machiavelli, N., The Portable Machiavelli (London: Penguin, 1979)
WEEK 6 – Clausewitz

Von Clausewitz, C., Principles of War (London: Penguin, 1982)
WEEK 7 – Clausewitz

Von Clausewitz, C., Principles of War (London: Penguin, 1982)
WEEK 8 – Kant

“Towards a Cosmopolitan Purpose,” “What is Enlightenment?” and “Perpetual Peace” in Kant,
Immanuel, Political Writings (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1991)
WEEK 9 – Carr

Carr, E.H., The Twenty Years’ Crisis (New York: Palgrave, 1981)
WEEK 10 – Lenin

Lenin. V., “What is to be Done?” and “The State and Revolution” in Lenin. V., Essential Works
of Lenin (Dover Publication, 1987)
WEEK 11 – Weber

Weber. M., “Politics as a Vocation,” “Science as Vocation,” Structures of Power,” “the Structure
of Charismatic Authority” and “The Meaning of Discipline” in Weber. M., From Max Weber
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1953)
WEEK 12 – Foucault

Foucault. M., Society Must be Defended (New York: Picador, 1997)
WEEK 13 – Foucault

Foucault. M., Society Must be Defended (New York: Picador, 1997)