wish to learn about how some of the central figures of political theory have addressed the issues that you are now grappling with. Or perhaps you simply wish to learn about something new. Whatever your personal learning goal is, my aim in this book is to give you a good solid understanding of the basics of political theory, which you can then build upon perhaps by picking up the primary works of the thinkers discussed within these pages.
Attempts have been made throughout the book to give real-life examples of some of the dilemmas that we address in these pages, and these examples have been chosen with the aim of helping you understand a topic better, and show how the debate contained herein, is applicable to everyday life. Whereas political theory is quite an intellectual pursuit, we should never lose sight of the fact that it should be about real, everyday life; political theory should help us in everyday moral or ethical dilemmas, it should allow us to talk and think politically, and it should aid us in the ability to be good citizens and question political power wherever it may exist. We are not talking about abstract notions here; we are discussing things that happen around us every day.
The book has been organized around key political questions, questions such as ‘what is the nature of the just state?’, and ‘why should I obey the state?’ It is organized in this manner, rather than a thinker-by-thinker structure (i.e. a chapter on Plato, a chapter on Hobbes and so on) to allow you to see the contributions made by various philosophers to similar topics. This structure should better allow you to compare and contrast the thinkers, examine their views on similar topics, and therefore to adopt a critical attitude to their ideas, by showing how they would critique one another.
This book might look slightly different from similar textbooks on the history of political thought. You will not be faced with a wall of text, but rather you might notice some features which are unique to this book. Firstly, each chapter commences with some key questions which you might want to consider before starting the chapter proper. Then within each chapter, you will notice at various points certain keywords or phrases will be emboldened; this is because I feel that these points are crucially important to the discussion in hand. You will also notice small text boxes which give brief summaries of discussions scattered throughout each chapter, and larger text boxes which give you more information on an individual thinker that we are discussing, giving you brief biographical details and the like. You can dip in and out of these sections as best fits your method of learning.
Crucially there are also activities after every section within the book. These activities are designed to solidify your reading, and encourage you to reflect on what you have read. You may choose to do these activities as you read through each chapter, or you may like to do them when you have completed the chapter; it is up to you – do what you feel is best. At the end of each chapter are some text-based questions; these are, perhaps, slightly trickier than the activities contained within each chapter. The text-based activities contain some short excerpts from key texts discussed in the book, with some questions attached. I ask that you read the text, then attempt the questions.
Contents of this book
Each chapter in this book, as mentioned above, is organized around a central question in the history of political thought. They are as follows.
What is the nature of politics?
We begin by examining what acting politically entails, or what should people engaged in politics do? We will find a large variety of responses across the history of political thought. This chapter will commence with a discussion of the Greek philosopher Socrates and his life and thought. He argued that the individual should always strive for knowledge of the virtues, and that the unexamined life is not worth living. There is something inherently human and vital to discussing the very type of questions that we will be tackling in this book together. We will then go on to examine the work of the Florentine writer Machiavelli, who will argue that the chief goal of any politician should be glory, both for themselves and for the state. If one achieves glory, you can be forgiven immoral acts you have committed along the way. The utilitarian school of moral thinking will then be introduced, which posits that happiness, rather than glory, should be the driving feature of all government policy and political action. Immanuel Kant will then be introduced as a counterbalance to both Machiavelli and the utilitarians. Politics must always bend the knee to morality for Kant, that is to say that acting morally is always more important that achieving glory and/or happiness. The chapter will conclude with a discussion of Max Weber and his guidance that passion is an insufficient quality to succeed in politics.
Is humanity nasty or nice?
This chapter will compare and contrast the works of English philosopher Thomas Hobbes and the Genevan Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Hobbes will illustrate that in their natural condition man is violent and nasty, and left to their own devices, that is to say without a state, they will end up killing one another. Rousseau will counter that man’s anti-sociability is not a product of nature; indeed, he claims that in his natural state man is good if not moral, but rather a product of civilized man. Civilization has corrupted our innate goodness. We will also briefly examine here the thoughts on the nature of good and evil by German philosopher Nietzsche, who argues that these concepts are not unchangeable over time, and that which we call good these days is often life destroying.
Why should I obey the state?
This chapter begins by examining the social contract theory of Thomas Hobbes and his near contemporary John Locke. Although they both ultimately say that all obligation to obey the state rests upon consent, the type of consent and the powers of the sovereign differ greatly between them. It will then examine some critiques of liberal social contract theory, namely those of Rousseau, Hume and Pateman.
Is democracy the best form of government?
This chapter will examine some of the challenges that exist around discussions of democratic thought. It will firstly compare and contrast Athenian direct democracy to our contemporary understanding of politics, noting the central differences between the two being a limited citizenry as well as the lack of representatives. It will then outline Edmund Burke’s arguments in favour of representative democracy, and in particular non-delegated representatives who are not obliged to pay too much attention to their electors in between elections. We will then go on to examine some of the challenges to democracy, namely James Madison’s federalist paper number 10, which argues that the size of the proposed US republic would prevent faction, before overviewing de Tocqueville’s and Mill’s concerns about the tyranny of the majority. We will see that Mill suggests that whereas everyone should get one vote, some people should get more than that.
When can my freedom be restricted?
This chapter will discuss a number of debates around the nature of freedom in society. It will commence with Isaiah Berlin’s distinction between positive and negative liberty; that there have been two different ways in the history of political thought that freedom has been conceptualized. This will be challenged by Gerald MacCallum who will argue that there is only one concept of freedom, and Quentin Skinner’s assertion that there are three. The chapter will end with a discussion of John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle, the notion that the just state should only ever stop someone from doing things that directly and physically harm someone else. The state, nor anyone else for that matter, has no right to ban someone from doing that which only harms themselves, or that which offends other people.
What would a just