PLS 421/ 521: THEORIES OF POLITICAL OBLIGATION (Lunch Seminar) Instructor: Dr. Shu-Shan Lee Meeting Time & Room: Every Friday, 12:00 pm - 14:50 pm, Room 8.319 E-mail: [email protected] COURSE DESCRIPTION A theory of political obligation tries to answer the question of why people should obey the state. This is perhaps one of the oldest subjects in the history of political thought. Sophocles raised it in Antigone and entertained the tragic consequence whereby an obligation to the laws of men clashed with the duty to comply with the laws of heaven. In the Crito, Socrates also developed several primitive theories of political obligation, such as tacit consent and gratitude, to justify his acceptance of the controversial death penalty his city had imposed upon him. Two and half millennia later, the question of political obligation is still a topic of debate. This continuous search for an answer echoes Isaiah Berlin’s comment that political obligation is perhaps the most fundamental of all political questions. This course will examine various approaches in the literature. Throughout the semester, we will consider the following questions: Is it reasonable to feel grateful to our country? Should I obey my state if its authority is not based on my consent? Is political obligation a matter of fair cooperation among citizenry for the sake of order, national security, and other public goods? Will the feeling of allegiance to the home country distort one’s judgment about political obligation? Do we have obligation to provide humanitarian aid to people who are suffering in other countries? In addition to these standard questions, we will also examine the feminist and Islamic perspectives, as well as empirical approaches to the study of political obligations. The object of the course is not merely to read some of the core texts in the literature on political obligations, but more importantly to critically assess the readings and to apply their arguments in your reflections on contemporary political issues. LEARNING OBJECTIVES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Becoming more aware of the importance of listening to and being tolerant of different ideas. Gaining advanced knowledge of theories of political obligation. Acquiring the ability to synthesizing the literature. Refining evidence-based arguments. Perfecting oral and written skills to convey ideas to others. Advancing critical thinking. Developing the sensitivity to apply theoretical knowledge to analyze and comment on real political issues.

MAJOR ASSIGNMENTS Class Participation (15%): You must attend classes. However, you will not receive a grade of “A” simply by coming to each seminar. Part of your training is not just how to read a text and analyze it, but to listen to others and learn to contribute to a dialogue in real time. Participation includes: 1. To ask a participant (the instructor included) to clarify his/her ideas. 2. To correct a participant’s misunderstanding (the instructor included) of a concept and theory. 3. To carry out exciting and productive engagement. 1

4. To be respectful and tolerant during the discussion. Weekly Research Questions (15%): You are required to turn in at least one question on each week’s readings. The weekly assignment is to be one-page long (12 point font, double spaced). It is not meant to be simple clarifying questions (e.g., what does the author mean by the natural duty of justice?) or questions unrelated to the argument of the study (e.g., when was George Klosko born?). Rather, I want your questions to be thoughtful and to get at things that affect the conclusions and inferences of the study. The research questions are due every Thursday by 11:59 pm. You must submit it to Turnitin in Moodle. I will not accept email attachments. You will receive an “F” for any late submission. To receive a good grade on questions and comments, you have to 1. State your questions concisely. 2. Explain why and how your questions are consequential for the conclusions of the study. Reading Assignment Presentations (15%): For each class session, 3 persons will be assigned to give their analysis of the readings. The presenter must place 15 hard-copy presentation outlines on the desk next to the class entrance and set up his/her PowerPoint before the class begins. I will close the door to the class before the first presentation begins. You have 8 minutes to finish your presentation. During the presentation, you should: 1. Introduce central arguments of the selected reading. 2. Evaluate its strengths and weaknesses. 3. Raise discussion questions related to the selected reading. Please also find below the grading rubric for presentations. Essay Proposal Presentations (15%): You are required to present proposals of your two essays. The presentation is scheduled during Week 7 (Feb. 20-26) and Week 15 (Apr. 17-23). On the presentation day, everyone must come to class earlier than the scheduled time. The presenter must place 15 hard-copy presentation outlines on the desk next to the class entrance and set up his/her PowerPoint before the class begins. I will close the door to the class before the first presentation begins. If the door is closed, you have missed your opportunity to attend for that day and will be counted as absent. You have 5 minutes to finish your presentation. During the presentation, your PowerPoint should include: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

What is the topic of the project? What is the thesis of the project? What are the theories involved in the project? What are the empirical cases selected for the project? How do the theories help you reflect on the cases? Why is the project important to you and your audience?

Please also find below the grading rubric for presentations. Two Essays (40%): You are required to write two essays. These papers are to be 7-8 pages long (12 point font, double spaced). The first must discuss course materials from Week 2 to Week 6. The second must address materials from Week 8 to Week 14. You are required to use Chicagostyle citation. The deadline for the first project is Saturday, 5 PM, March 4th. The second essay is due on Saturday, 5 PM, April 29th. You must submit both essays to Turnitin in Moodle. I will not accept email attachments. A good essay usually presents theoretical depth, empirical relevance, and personal reflection. Please find below the additional grading rubric for the two essays. 2

GRADING RUBRICS Essays: A+

Excellent Structure: Your thesis was clear, insightful, and even exciting. All ideas in the paper flowed logically. Your argument was identifiable, reasonable, and sound. You had excellent transitions. Your paragraphs had solid topic sentences, and each sentence was clearly related to that topic sentence. You cited adequately. Analysis: You gave concrete empirical cases and precise textual evidence to support most points. You integrated theoretical discussion, empirical significance and personal reflection in an outstanding manner. Your analysis posed new ways to think of the material.

A

Good Structure: Your thesis was clear and insightful. All ideas in the paper flowed logically. Your argument was identifiable, reasonable, and sound. You had excellent transitions. Your paragraphs had solid topic sentences, and each sentence was clearly related to that topic sentence. You cited adequately. But you had a few unclear topic sentences and arguments. Analysis: You gave concrete empirical cases and precise textual evidence to support most points. You integrated theoretical discussion, empirical significance and personal reflection well. Your arguments showed independent thought.

B

Acceptable Structure: Your thesis was clear, but not original. Your argument was generally clear and appropriate, although it wandered occasionally. You had a few unclear transitions, and some of your paragraphs were without strong topic sentences. You had some inadequate citations. Analysis: You gave empirical cases and textual evidence to support most points, but the cases and evidence appeared weak. Your argument usually made sense, although some gaps in logic existed. You did a solid job of synthesizing course material but did not show you independent thought.

C

Borderline Structure: Your thesis was unclear and vague. You provided little structure for the paper. Your paper was wander, with few transitions, few topic sentences, and little logic. You had some inadequate citations. Your paragraphs were not organized coherently. Analysis: Your points often lacked supporting evidence, or else you used evidence inappropriately. Your quotations were poorly integrated into sentences. You gave a quote, but then failed to analyze it or showed how it supports your argument. Your argument was unclear and your logic sometimes failed. You did a fair job of synthesizing course material but did not show your independent thought. 3

D

Needs Help Structure: Your thesis was difficult to identify, or it was a bland restatement of an obvious point. Your paragraphs showed little structure. Your transitions were confusing and unclear. The paper was a loose collection of statements, rather than a cohesive argument. You did know how to cite. Analysis: You failed to support statements, and the evidence you gave was poorly analyzed, poorly integrated into the paper, or simply incorrect. Your argument was impossible to identify. You did a confusing or poor job synthesizing material, and you did not develop your own independent thought.

Presentations: A+

Excellent The presenter was well prepared, and had a masterful command of the topic. The argument was well organized and supported with evidence. The PowerPoint itself was well done. All the little things were done right (eye contact, engagement, time management).

A

Good The presenter was well prepared, and had a masterful command of the topic. The argument was well organized and supported with evidence. The PowerPoint itself was well done. But the little things regarding delivery (eye contact, engagement, time management) could have been better.

B

Acceptable The presenter was prepared, and had a good command of the topic. The presentation was clearly organized and supported with initial evidence. There were some awkward presentation moments. The PowerPoint itself was appropriate. You need to improve your delivery style.

C

Borderline The presenter had an adequate command of the topic. The student could have been better prepared. Your delivery was halting at times. Your argument, evidence, and PowerPoint could have been better.

D

Needs Help Something was very wrong here. As a presenter, you were not prepared with the content and argument. Your ideas were disorganized, and your presentation style was halting. You made little effort to design the PowerPoint.

4

GRADING SCALE A AB+ B BC+ C CD+ D F

95-100 90-94.99 85-89.99 80-84.99 75-79.99 70-74.99 65-69.99 60-64.99 55-59.99 50-54.99 <50

PENALTIES Late Attendance: The classes will start at the scheduled time. I will close the door to the class approximately 5 minutes after the lecture begins. If the door is closed, you have missed your opportunity to attend for that day and will be counted as absent. Unexcused Absences: You are allowed two unexcused absences without penalty. Each additional unexcused absence will be penalized as follows: penalties for absences will be applied at the rate of 15 % per section. (For example, if you have an 89 final average with four unexcused absences, your final participation grade will be 89-30=59). Please note two further points. First, your participation grade will turn to 0 should the fifth unexcused absence occur. Second, and most importantly, you will fail the class if you have six absences in total during the semester. Late Submission: penalties for lateness will be applied at the rate of 15 percentage points per day after the due date, up to a maximum of three days late. (For example, if you have an 89 grade for a writing assignment with 2-days late submission, your final grade for this assignment will be 89-30=59). After three days, the work will be counted as a non-submission (i.e., 0 point for this part of your evaluation). Note: submission after the deadline time on the submission day will count as one day late. Plagiarism: Students are required to ensure that the work which they submit for grading in this class is their own. Students must provide citations in the form of footnotes when referencing the works of other scholars in all of their assignments. Instances of cheating and/or plagiarism will not be tolerated and will result in the student receiving a score of 0 for an assignment. All instances in which plagiarism is suspected will be referred to SHSS for disciplinary review. Copying, rephrasing of text without citations, and submitting unoriginal work constitutes plagiarism. GRADE APPEAL PROCESS If you think that a grade you have received is unfair, you may appeal. To request a review, you must provide me with a one-page written statement (12-point font, double spaced) explaining why you deserve a better grade. After review, I reserve the right to lower, maintain or increase your original grade. 5

OFFICE HOURS Time: Every Tuesday, Thursday and Friday, 15:00 pm - 16:00 pm Place: 8.213 You must make an appointment during my office hours. The URL for reservation is posted on Moodle. We can also arrange an alternative time based on my availability. If you make an appointment with me and are late by more than 5 minutes, our meeting will be canceled and you will not be able to arrange another meeting with me until the end of the semester. This is a matter of respect for me and your classmates’ time. If you need to cancel a meeting, send me an email at least 24 hours in advance. Moreover, I reserve the right to send students away who come and see me outside of the office hours without an appointment. COURSE OUTLINE AND READINGS Give yourself adequate time to read in advance of class. It is imperative for you to come to lectures prepared. Doing the reading is the first and most important requirement if you are to succeed in this course. Please also note that you are required to bring the weekly assigned textbooks to class. I will expel from the class those who do not respect this policy. Please also note that I reserve the right to make changes to the reading assignments. Any changes will be communicated in class and via Moodle.

Week 1 (Jan. 9-15): Introduction

Week 2 (Jan. 16-22): Consent (87 pages) 1. Hanna Pitkin, “Obligation and Consent-I,” American Political Science Review 59, no. 4 (1965): 990–99. Hanna Pitkin, “Obligation and Consent-II,” American Political Science Review 60, no. 1 (1966): 39–52. 2. A. John Simmons, Moral Principles and Political Obligations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981), Chapters 3-4, 57-100. 3. George Klosko, Political Obligations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), Chapter 6, 122-140.

Week 3 (Jan. 23-29): Fair Play (131 pages) 4. Robert Nozick, Anarchy , State , and Utopia (Oxford: Black, Kingsbury, Parbury, and Allen, 2001), Chapter 5, 88-119. 5. Simmons, Moral Principles and Political Obligations, Chapter 5, 101-142. 6. George Klosko, Political Obligations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), Chapters 1-2, 1-57. 6

Week 4 (Jan. 30-Feb. 5): Natural Duty (84 pages) 7. John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999), Sections 1-4, 18-19, and 51-52 (pp. 3-19, pp. 93-101, and pp. 293-308). 8. Simmons, Moral Principles and Political Obligations, Chapter 6, 143-156. 9. Jeremy Waldron, “Special Ties and Natural Duties,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 22, no. 1 (1993): 3–30.

Week 5 (Feb. 6-12): Gratitude (68 pages) 10. Simmons, Moral Principles and Political Obligations, Chapter 7, 157-190. 11. A.D.M. Walker, “Political Obligation and the Argument from Gratitude,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 17, no. 3 (1988), 191-211. 12. George Klosko, “Political Obligation and Gratitude,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 18, no. 4 (1989): 352–58. A.D.M. Walker, “Obligations of Gratitude and Political Obligation,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 18, no. 4 (1989): 359–64.

Week 6 (Feb. 13-19): Feminism (56 pages) 13. Robert B. Westbrook, “I Want a Girl, Just Like the Girl That Married Harry James": American Women and the Problem of Political Obligation in World War II,” American Quarterly 42, no. 4 (1990): 587–614. 14. Nancy J. Hirschmann, “Freedom, Recognition, and Obligation: A Feminist Approach to Political Theory,” The American Political Science Review 83, no. 4 (1989): 1227–44. 15. Carole Pateman and Nancy J. Hirschmann, “Political Obligation, Freedom and Feminism.,” American Political Science Review 86, no. 1 (1992): 179–88.

Week 7 (Feb. 20-26): First Essay Proposal Presentation

Week 8 (Feb. 27-Mar. 5): Islam (60 pages) 16. Asma Afsaruddin, “Obedience to Political Authority: An Evolutionary Concept,” in M. A. Muqtedar Khan, ed., Islamic Democratic Discourse: Theory, Debates, and Philosophical (Oxford: Lexington Books, 2006), 37-60. 17. Muhammad Salahuddin, “Political Obligation: Its Scope and Limits in Islamic Political Doctrine,” American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 3, no.2 (1986), 247-264. 18. Andrew F. March, “Islamic Foundations for a Social Contract in non-Muslim Liberal Democracies,” American Political Science Review 101, issue 2 (2007), 235-252. 7

FIRST ESSAY DUE ON SATURDAY, 5 PM, MARCH 4TH

Week 9 (Mar. 6-12): International (82 pages) 19. Onora Nell, “Lifeboat Earth,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 4, no. 3 (1975): 273–92. Onora Nell, “Rights, Obligations and World Hunger,” in Global Ethics: Seminal Essays, ed. Thomas Pogge and Keith Horton (St. Paul: Paragon House, 2008), 139–55. 20. Andrew Dobson, “Thick Cosmopolitanism,” Political Studies 54, no. 1 (2006): 165–84. 21. Michael Freeman, “World Poverty: Rights, Obligations, Institutions, Motivations,” Human Rights Quarterly 37, no. 2 (2015): 439–63.

Week 10 (Mar. 13-19): Associative (116 pages) 22. Daniel Druckman, “Nationalism, Patriotism, and Group Loyalty: A Social Psychological Perspective,” Mershon International Studies Review 38, no. 1 (1994): 43–68. 23. Paul C. Stern, “Why Do People Sacrifice for Their Nations?,” Political Psychology 16, no. 2 (1995): 217–35. 24. Rogers M. Smith, Stories of Peoplehood: The Politics and Morals of Political Membership (Cambridge: cambridge University Press, 2003), 1-16, 32-42, 72-102, and 186-198.

Week 11 (Mar. 20-26): Spring Break

Week 12 (Mar. 27-Apr. 2): Associative (107 pages) 25. Ronald Dworkin, Law’s Empire (Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1986), Chapter 6, 176-224. 26. John Horton, Political Obligation (Issues in Political Theory) (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1992), 137-171. 27. Yael Tamir, Liberal Nationalism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), Chapter 6, 117-139.

Week 13 (Apr. 3-9): Associative (77 pages) 28. David Miller, On Nationality (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), Chapter 3, 49-80. 29. Samuel Scheffler, Boundaries and Allegiances: Problems of Justice and Responsibility in Liberal Thought (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), Chapter 3, 48-65. 30. A. John Simmons, “Associative Political Obligations,” Ethics 106, no. 2 (1996): 247–73. 8

Week 14 (Apr. 10-16): Associative (107 pages) 31. Christopher Heath Wellman, “Associative Allegiances and Political Obligations,” Social Theory and Practice 23, no. 2 (1997): 181–204. 32. Klosko, Political Obligations, Chapters 9-10, 181-243. 33. Massimo Renzo, “Associative Responsibilities and Political Obligation,” The Philosophical Quarterly 62, no. 246 (2012): 106–27.

Week 15 (Apr. 17-23): Second Essay Proposal Presentation

Week 16 (Apr. 24-30): SECOND ESSAY DUE ON SATURDAY, 5 PM, APRIL 29TH OTHER IMPORTANT POLICIES 1. No cell phones whatsoever. If you bring a laptop or tablet to class, it must be used strictly for taking notes and accessing readings. I reserve the right to expel those who do not respect this policy. 2. I will not offer any extra work for rounding up the grades under any circumstance. 3. Your final grade is final. It is not a basis for negotiation. If I feel any form of explicit or implicit coercion on your part to change your final grade, I will not hesitate to file an academic misconduct report against you. 4. Read your syllabus. I will not answer questions that can be answered by looking at the syllabus.

9