A. Horowitz – Course Director
P. Clark, P. Gray, L. Kane, A. Caramento – Teaching Asst.s
AS/POLS 2900.6A
Second Term Essay
January 2011
For the Second Term Essay you may take either one of two routes:
Route A:
If you so choose, you may develop your own essay topic in consultation with your TA. You should develop
some sort of formal written proposal to be seen and approved by your TA. It need not be long. A paragraph
up to a page will do. It should define the problem or theme you wish to investigate or state the argument
you wish to make. It should also indicate the sources you intend to use, both primary and secondary (if any
of the latter). You may focus exclusively on either Machiavelli, Hobbes or Locke, or you may wish to
pursue a problem or concept across the treatment given it by two thinkers (I would not recommend trying
to handle three), e.g.: the relationship between violence and order in Hobbes and Machiavelli, or the
meaning and use of sovereignty in Hobbes and Locke, or the degree of difference in the limits placed upon
personal freedom in Hobbes and Locke, etc...
Do not proceed to write on any topic you may have developed until it has been discussed with and
approved by your TA. Each TA may set her/his own deadline for receiving proposals. If you do not meet
that deadline, then you must fall back upon...
Route B:
This route, no less worthy than route A, consists in writing upon one of the topics suggested below. In
some cases, one of the suggested topics may lead you to think of a related original topic. In that case, treat
the topic as falling under Route A: prepare a proposal, see your TA, etc...
1. For Machiavelli republics are preferable to principalities inasmuch as they do not depend on the
concentration of superior “virtu” in a Prince. What does the “virtu” of a prince mean to Machiavelli? How
is this “virtu” reorganized and changed in a republic? Or is it that in a republic something else comes to
replace “virtu”? If princes and founders are necessary to the creation of republics, do these republics
transcend their origins? In what way/s, to what extent?
2. “In spite of making ‘the people’ or ‘the multitude’ into political actors (in the Discourses and even in
The Prince), because an economy of violence is the highest end for him Machiavelli has actually made
politics of limited interest to all but a very few political experts.” Discuss, giving your reasons for agreeing
or disagreeing, in whole or in part, with this statement.
3. Hobbes would like to found politics on a science of human nature. But his theory is not as scientific as
he might like to think it is. This is because his description of the state of nature only describes the relations
of a society at a certain point in its history. Were social relations to change, Hobbes might no longer be in a
position to argue for a strong state. Discuss, giving your reasons for agreeing or disagreeing, in whole or in
part, with this statement…
4. “Hobbes has no theory of obligation, only a theory of fear. Fear results only in obedience, not
obligation.” Discuss, as above…
5. “ Hobbes’s individuals could never support Hobbes’s Sovereign because its oppressiveness would be
just as bad as his state of nature.” Discuss, as above…
6. While the Ancients insisted that a political community could only exist when the selfish passions were
moderated and/or transformed by reason, Hobbes constructed a political order that appeals exclusively to
the selfish passions. Can Hobbes’s commonwealth be called a political community? What sort of needs
and what sort of reason hold it together? Does the existence of a Sovereign do away with the need for
politics?
7. Locke’s case for limited government is threatened by the ambiguity he attaches to his description of
human nature. People cannot be both a threat to each other and capable of enforcing the law of nature in
the state of nature. Discuss, as above...
8. Locke’s political theory has often enough been described as, if not democratic itself, then at least as
being substantially on the way to a principle of democratic self-rule. What are Locke’s differences from a
full democracy, and what, in your reasoned opinion, would he have to change in order to arrive at a full
democracy?
9. By introducing money “and all its consequences” into the state of nature, Locke manages to undermine
not only the economic but also the political equality he is upholding in the state of nature and in civil
society. Discuss, as above...
10. “When looked at realistically, Hobbes and Locke have far more in common than first appears to be the
case. Their states of nature, their social contracts and their sovereign powers are effectively the same. The
only thing that really differs is that the sovereign power in Locke, i.e. the majority of contractors might be
in better control of its agent, the executive power.” Discuss, as above...
General Instructions:
Your essays should be about ten double-spaced typed pages long, or a bit longer. Your answers should
demonstrate that you can back up your interpretation or argument with references to the original text(s). If
you wish to use secondary sources, please consult the course outline for suggestions. It would also be a
good idea to check with your TA or the course director concerning your selection of interpretive works.
Essays are due immediately after Reading Week, on Monday, February 28.