Samenvatting
Summary Contemporary Social and Political Philosophy part 1
- Instelling
- Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VU)
Summary of all lectures and literature for the first midterm.
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 4 van de 62 pagina's
Voorbeeld 4 van de 62 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
1 beoordeling
Door: yasemincadogan • 2 jaar geleden
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
Summary Contemporary Social and Political PhilosophyHC1 What is political theory today?
- Theory depends on research aim-> research question
- You have ambitions with your goal
Descriptive: what are the facts? (quite simple)
Explanatory: why are these facts like that?
Evaluative: are the facts good or bad?
Predictive: what will/would happen with the facts or with intervention?
Prescriptive: what should be done?
Need all underlying influences of the facts -> give recommendations
What type of theory do you need for all of these
- Required theory
Descriptive: concepts and typologies
Explanatory: casual/interpretative framework
Evaluative: normative framework (criteria)
Predictive: predictive models
Prescriptive: action theory-> how to bring change
- Action theory, normative frameworks and concepts and typologies is what political theory contributes to->
clears it up-> how to, why, what -> normative-> political theory is necessary to do the work properly
- Objection:
Normative theory: isn’t that just a matter of personal opinion? Science about facts, not values
(=positivism)
So what is the status of normative theory?
Avoid two extremes: dogmatism (truth is objective, given and it is evident and obvious) and subjectivism/
extreme relativism (truth is subjective, depends on preference or truth is relative, depends on
context/culture)
- So what else? Constructivism
- Constructivism: the most common approach today
1. Start at ‘more or less universal institutions’ -> slavery is bad, private property is good
2. Define the underlying values-> human dignity, equality, freedom
3. Formulate principles -> humans are not property, slavery is immoral
4. Translate into practical judgements-> abolish slavery, compensate the owners(?) (because they lost private
property?)
5. Adjust until a ‘reflective equilibrium’: tensions between 1-2-3-4 is resolved-> they are in balance
Is this a good way to proceed? Any problems? -> freeze into dogma for a individual political scientist
but not for the whole science, yet this could be -> is it not already cheated? Slavery is bad is already a
‘presumption’ so the end result is already decided -> circular: justifying own intuition
- Any limits to normative theory?
You can’t get anywhere from nowhere-> rules from argumentation
Very basic agreement on institutions is needed (‘slavery is great’ would be a non-starter)
There will always remain ‘reasonable disagreement’
Normative theories are ‘proposals’ or ‘invitations’ -> for further discussion
- Political theory
- Moral- political philosophy
Ethics: more on personal conduct-> who to act/ be morally just?
- Political philosophy
Institutions: institutional conduct-> what would be a just constitution
- Often difficult to separate: is euthanasia wrong? Versus Should euthanasia be made illegal?
- Critique of political realism: political philosophy is too moralistic-> it should not be applied ethics but a-moral
- Position of political theory
Part of political science (comparative politics, IR, public administration etc.)-> same for other social
science (more empirical but also with theory)-> relation with law, economics and history -> philosophy:
ethics and political philosophy-> relation real world: politics and society
1.1 about positivism (is) versus prescriptive (ought)-> uncomfortable relations: cohabitation
1.2. relation with history: textualism (Strauss) versus critics contextualism (Skinner) (have to take context
into account, cant just take a text from then and compare it with text from now)
1.3 with philosophy: analytical, ideal (Rawls) versus non-ideal, realist (critics)
1.4 with real world: utopian versus sober/ informed (reality check)
- Political theory seen as outrageous by political science
- Contemporary political theory: a story of expansion
,- A story of expansion:
1940-1960s USA: émigré philosophers (germens immigrated to US: Arendt, Strauss, Voegelin) versus
‘technically competent barbarians’ (very intelligent but not including values: totalitarianism, positivist
social scientist) -> political theory is ‘dead’
1971 USA/UK: Rawls (TJ) (sort of welfare state) and followers versus critics: libertarians (Nozick; more
limited state), communitarians (Sandel, Taylor; too individualistic), Republicans (Pettit: citizenship is also
important rather than consumers and producers)
1970-1980s West: Anglo-Americans analytical liberalism versus Continental-Europeans: post-
structuralists (Foucault), critical theorist (Habermas), (analytical) socialists (Cohen)
1990-00s Globally: The West versus The Rest: the global turn (Dryzek 1.3), radical critics from left and
right (green/black/queer/neofascism etc.)
- Political theory and ideology: 4 options
Ideology is bad Ideology is okay
Political theory is not ideology Strictly separate: political theory They’re just different and both
is better thinking about politics legitimate (Freeden), different is
(ivory tower; sperate from significant but the one not less
ideology, above ground politics legitimate
where it does happen)
Political theory is ideology Political theory needs a scientific Amit and accept political theories
purification (positive political with ideological characters (e.g.
theory; e.g. rational choice), apart critical theory, Marxism)
from normative values
- Political theory and ideology: 6 differences
Ideology versus political theory
1. Public (for many people)-> the masses versus semi-private (for peers only)-> universities etc.
2. Developed by groups versus developed by individual thinkers
3. Active use of emotions versus rational and reflective
4. Opaque, ambiguous versus openly, clear
5. Unintended meanings matter too versus unintended meanings don’t matter
6. Loose on what is good argument (powerful, convince many people etc.) versus strict on what is good
argument (rules etc.)
Freeden defends ideology -> do I want to be ideological?
- Asymmetry (Freeden)
Students of ideology just study ideologies (including political theory)-> object is on the outside-> to arrive
at a higher level of conceptual analysis of the explanandum
Students of political theory are also part/ contribute of political theory-> part of the object-> students of
philosophy enter into similar discourses to those whom they study
But nuance: theorists want to prescribe and to offer good solutions to problems of political
organizations and practices externally-> ideology wants to offer a persuasive account of what the
world of ideologies is like
Which is more engaged with real politics? theorist want to prescribe, so add to real politics, whereas
they are also influenced by events whereas ideologists keep going no matter what happens in ‘real’
world
- The dominant ‘Ideology’ (still) -> picture of time square
1. National sovereignty as the dominant geopolitical order
2. (Representative) liberal democracy as the dominant political order
3. (Regulated) market capitalism as the dominant economic order
4. Individual human rights as the dominant legal-ethical order
5. Egalitarian liberalism as the dominant political theory
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
THE LIBERAL PARAGIDM
- Not unchallenged, but sets the terms of the debate: political theory today: attacking, defending, refining it
- If this is the paradigm: what are the alternatives?
1. Global governance, internationalism; localism
2. Authoritarianism; direct/deliberative democracy
3. (Democratic) socialism, communism; autarkism
4. Group rights; duties, virtues; interests
5. Libertarianism; communitarianism, conservatism
Return throughout the course
- Is liberalism an ideology?
, Does liberalism meet the definition of ideology? Freeden says yes: [Ideologies] are clusters of ideas,
beliefs, opinions, values, and attitudes- usually held by identifiable groups,- that provide directives, even
plans, of action for public policy-making- in an endeavour to uphold, justify, change or criticize- the
social and political arrangements of a state or other political community-> the product of Anglo-American
political philosophy is itself a specific ideological manifestation
Isn’t liberalism a neutral framework? ..the much-trumpeted neutrality of liberalism among different
conceptions of the good is both chimerical and palpably undesirable in a political society in which
practices have to be put into effect -> liberalism is really an ideology, not neutral framework
- Conclusion: contemporary political theory is
Different; alive and kicking (not ‘dead’); rapidly changing and expanding (new thinkers etc.); having its
own ‘professional’ standards of quality
Reading: Overview of political theory, Dryzek, Honig and Philips
- Humanities of political science-> humanistic study of politics and scepticism on hegemony sought by
colleagues
- Political theory: formal theory geared solely towards the explanation of political phenomena, where
explanation is modelled on the natural sciences and takes the form of seeking patterns and offering causal
explanations for events in the human world-> challenged by qualitative and interpretative approaches ->
between universals of normative philosophy and empirical world of politics
- Challenge for identity of political theory how to position
Academic disciplines of political science, history and philosophy
World of politics and abstract, ruminative register of theory
Canonical political theory and newer resources (feminist, critical theory, discourse analysis etc.)
- Political theory: Empirical work with reflections, Normative component (beyond cannon of Plato to NATO),
Sub-discipline with no dominant methodology or approach -> current rethinking: interdisciplinary
- Relationship political science:
Theory not seen as ‘true’ scientific study
Science and objectivity steeped in normativity that scientist disavow-> thus theory not science->
cohabitation: cooperation and toleration -> theory more empirical politics
- Relationship with history:
Ashcraft: acknowledging the ideological character means embracing political character (contextualism) ->
Strauss: wisdom of ancients outside history (universalism) -> Wolin: politics toward public good not as an
instrument
Political outside history-> not about universal truth nor interests-> action that disrupts ordinary affairs
- Relationship with philosophy:
Rawls: questions on justice and equality and choice -> Dworkin: welfare state
Relationship: abstracted/hypothetical register of analytical philosophe and approaches that stress
specificities of historical or contemporary context -> challenge Rawls: Rawls not neutral but ideological
- Relationship with ‘real world’ politics:
Utopia challenged by what can not be implemented-> other side: sober (only what is possible)
Theorist take cue from what happens around them
- Institutional landscape: interdisciplinary-> starting point political science but also in law, economics, history
etc.
- 1950-60s US behaviouralism: civil disobedience, justice etc-> what counted as politics-> political-theoretical
space between or outside liberalism and Marxism -> Rawls: Theory of Justice
Political theory in need of rescue or revivification
- Political theory very much alive and kicking-> Anglo-American world Liberalism very dominant: market
economy and politics necessary for public power into private benefit-> differences between theorists about
boundaries of politics, political intervention etc. -> opposition was Marxism: centrality of social class-> not
just liberalism versus Marxism but also alternatives
- 1970-90s liberal theory criticized: Foucault, Habermans, etc. -> mass society, race, gender inequalities,
personal and political identity
- Liberalism still dominant-> weight to the individual-> convergence around equality: sovereign virtue-> liberal
egalitarianism -> liberal dominance on equality: individualism opposed to socialist thought -> increasingly
focused around questions of individual responsibility, opportunity, and endowment, thus less engaged with
social structures of inequality, and less easily distinguishable from liberalism
- Liberal communitarian debate: stressing abstract individual and their rights as building blocks liberals missed
community part -> social relations-> however not the case: liberals misinterpreted-> individual never
atomistic, abstract
, - Feminism: responsibility individuals have towards each other and difference social location-> language
masculine-> liberalism seen as overly individualistic, strong private/public divide and lack of gender issues->
but liberalism has changed, much more agreeing with feminism
- Democracy and critical theory: Republicanism: first seen as alternative but interlinked with liberalism->
deliberate democracy also seen as alternative but taken up by liberals at a later stage-> critical theory:
(Habermas) critique of instrumental rationality but now role of rights that is similar to liberalism
- Green political theory: liberal individualism and capitalist economic growth not a good combination with
sustainable political ecology (some moved more liberal)
- Post-Structuralism: seen as critical rather than constructive-> yet can bridge gap with liberalism-> also
alternative models of politics and ethics -> grand narratives: reimagine and reiterate it-> fundamental meta-
narratives rejected (those seen as true, nature/history intrinsic purpose or two-world metaphysics)-> not
disentangle from present history -> without ends or guarantees (faith, progress, virtue) but in name of cruelties
also been committed-> full responsibilities for conclusions that others evade (through god etc.)
- Liberalism centres itself-> absorbs others-> but there is shift -> acknowledge traditions of thought beyond
western liberalism-> not as easily rejected-> foundationalism caused debate-> no foundation for universal
justice, equality or human rights-> anti-foundationalism became more consensus-> liberalism post-
foundationalism -> more interest in alternatives-> more questions of morel universalism, cultural and religious
difference-> multiculturalism: not liberalism but contains liberal framing (rights, toleration etc.)-> liberalism
dominance creates awkwardness in defending some theories-> globalisation, liberalism very west and national
but becoming more global -> question on how this will develop in future: religion, democracy, race, gender
etc.
- Political theory important for other political science
IR: own theory part: realism, constructivism, liberalism-> liberalism different from political theory: more
about building global cooperation in terms of institutions-> realism: state maximize security in anarchy->
constructivism on social constructs over time and place-> liberalism Lockean view, realism Hobbesian
view, constructivism Habermasian critical theory -> new contributions: e.g. Rawls, feminism etc.
Comparative Politics: rational choice theory-> public sphere as democratic-> role of state as liberal
constitutionalist theory-> Marxist theory for developing societies -> democratization only minimalist
account-> race and diaspora more Tocqueville-> multiculturalism and race more attention
Methodology: interpretation of social science methods, inter-disciplinarity from political theory for
reflection
Public policy: policy implications form theory (Rawls, Dworkin etc.)-> recommendations-> philosophy
and public affairs-> democracy and representation use political theory
Policy evaluation and design: normative criteria necessary as standards-> theory used for this and also
political discourse
Rational choice theory: clarifies what is in situations-> provided normative theorizing-> destructive for
democracy-> how to curb this behaviour
- Reconnect theory with empirical side in order to have a defence against political forces
- Theory sub-discipline, two opposing trends; more tightly boundaries and more cross-disciplinary/
interdisciplinary work
Reading: Ideology, political theory and political philosophy, Freeden
- Political thought is thinking about politics at any level of conceptualization and articulation-> political activity
and processes-> normal and necessary
- Six strands:
the meticulous construction of argument;
the normative prescription of standards of public conduct;
the imaginative production of insight;
the genealogical exploration of provenance and change;
the deconstructive unpacking of paradigms;
and the morphological analysis of concepts and conceptual clusters
- First historical narrative of philosophers with conceptions of the good life combined with intricate arguments
and reasons for adopting rational and moral prescriptions and proposals for implementing them, some
practical, some less so-> through twentieth century thinking about attitudes or beliefs-> Gramsci: role of
masses and intellectuals in shaping political ideals at all levels
- Diverse methods-> differences reflective of splits and specializations
- Political philosophy: focusses on normative but also distance from actual stuff of politics but more philosophy
of political life-> no agreement on what they do-> analytical philosophers on what is a good political
argument; values? Reflective equilibrium? Or rational communication?
- Political value ascribed to state before but now more what the state can do for human and social flourishing
and reaffirm rational, contemplative individual
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper svandoorm. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €6,49. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 50155 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen