POL113 Tutorial Notes

Sept 18: Positive liberty: - Has proven particularly susceptible to rhetorical abuse - Possession of power - Berlin says “positive liberty is involved in the answer to the question ‘what or who is the source of control or interference that can determine someone to do, or be, this rather than that?’ Negative liberty: - Freedom from external restraints on one’s actions - Berlin says “liberty in a sense involves an answer to the question; what is the area within which the subject - a person of groups or group of persons - is or should be left to do or to be what is able to do or be, without interference by other persons What is negative liberty? Why is it called negative? - Freedom from government - Freedom from prejudice - It's not obstructing your freedom - About the others of not telling you or forcing you to do something - Capacity for you to choose; more of the capacity than the object - Secure a sphere where you can choose without the coercion of others What is positive liberty? Why is it called positive? - Some person interfering in the life of others - Freedom to … - We are free to choose particular things - To be free is to rule yourself - Self-determined in yourself Liberalism = Socialism Berlin is more sympathetic to negative liberty; - Berlin is not an anarchist - Has nothing to do with the political regime Sept 25: Week 2 & 3 reading: 1. What is the definition of ideology? How is it connected to Marx’s theory? Pejorative understanding of ideology? - A set of ideals and beliefs that are dominant in society and are used to to justify the power and privilege of the ruling class - Main core values and beliefs of how the world should be run

- Is related to truth; could be false - Ideologists are not scientific; not giving us the truth; idea of truth is very important 2. What are the main features of the freedom approach? - More generally accessible - More philosophical - Freedom wants to move the conversation in a different way; languages, values - Political concepts always have different meanings 3. Why can’t we move to a post ideological approach? - We can move beyond ideology - We run things as they should be - Scientific or expert knowledge to run things; so we can automize Oct 2; week 4 reading: Rawls: Justice as Fairness Chapter 7: ● One way of thinking about justice is to imagine a social contract in which people come together to choose the basic principles that will govern their society ● Some parties to the social contract might be stronger, or wealthier, or savvier than others ● Some might take advantage of a superior bargaining position ● According to Rawls, the way to think about justice is to ask what principles would be chosen by people who came together behind a ‘veil of ignorance’ that temporarily deprived them of any knowledge about where they would wind up in society ● Only a hypothetical contract such as this, carried out an original position of equality, would produce principles of justice untainted by differences of bargaining power of knowledge ● Here are some questions to consider as you read Rawls: 1. Is the idea of a hypothetical contract behind a veil of ignorance a compelling way of thinking about justice? 2. What principles does Rawls think would be chosen in the original position? 3. Do you agree that these principles would be chosen? A theory of Justice; John Rawls The role of justice: ● Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought ● A theory however elegant and economical must be rejected or revised if it is untrue, likewise laws and institutions no matter how efficient and well-arranged must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust ● Therefore in a just society the liberties of equal citizenship are taken as settled; the rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining oe to the calculus of social interests ● Being first virtues of human activities, truth and justice are uncompromising

- The veil of ignorance is helpful in producing fair judgments about justice as it prevents biases based on one's self-interest or privileged position. It aims to generate principles that are impartial and considerate of everyone's well-being. - However, some critics argue that it may not address all politically necessary questions or adequately account for cultural and contextual factors. - It's generally considered a valuable tool for thought experiments but not a complete solution to complex issues of justice. 3. Are you satisfied with the principles Rawls derives from justice as fairness? - Rawls' principles from justice as fairness have been influential in ethical and political philosophy, but whether they are considered satisfactory depends on individual perspectives and values. Oct 16; week 5 reading: On being Conservative: Chapter 1: ● The common belief that it is impossible (or, if not impossible, then so unpromising as to be not while attempting) to explicitly explain general principles from what is recognized to be conservative conduct is not one that I share. ● To be conservative is to be disposed to think and behave in certain manners; it is to prefer certain kinds of conduct and certain conditions of human circumstances to others; it is to be disposed to make certain kinds of choices. ● To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to Utopian bliss. ● It is to be equal to one’s own fortune, to live at the level of one’s own means, to be content with the want of greater perfection which belongs alike to oneself and one’s circumstances. ● Changes are without effect only upon those who notice nothing, who are ignorant of what they possess and apathetic circumstances; and they can be welcomed indiscriminately only by those who esteem nothing, whose attachments are fleeting and who are strangers to love and affections. ● Moreover, to be conservative is not merely to be averse from change, it is also a manner of accommodating ourselves to changes, an activity imposed upon all men. ● For, change is a threat to identity, and every change is an emblem of extinction. ● A man’s identity is nothing more than an unbroken rehearsal of contingencies, each at the mercy of circumstance and each significant in proportion to its familiarity. ● Changes, them, have to be suffered; and a man of conservative temperament cannot be indifferent to them. ● Innovating is always an equivocal enterprise, in which gain and loss are so closely interwoven that it is exceedingly difficult to forecast the final up-shot: there is no such thing as an unqualified improvement. ● For, innovating is an activity which generates not only the ‘improvement’ sought, but new and complex situations of which these are only the components.

● Innovation entails certain loss and possible gain, therefore, the onus of proof, to show that the proposed change may be expected to be on the whole beneficial, rests with the would-be innovator. 1. Believes that the more closely an innovation resembles growth the less likely it is to result in a preponderance loss. 2. Thinks that an innovation which is a response to some specific defect, one designed to redress some specific disequilibrium, is more desirable than one which springs from a notion of a generally improved condition of human circumstances, and is far more desirable than one generated by a vision of perfection. - Prefers small and limited innovations to large and definite. 3. Favors a slow rather than a rapid pace, and pauses to observe current consequences and make appropriate adjustments. 4. Believes the occasion to be important; and, other things being equal, considers the most favorable occasion for innovation to be when the projected change is most likely to be limited to what is intended and least likely to be corrupted by undesired and unmanageable consequences. ● The disposition is to be conservative, then, warm and positive in respect of enjoyment, and correspondingly cool and critical in respect of change and innovation; these two inclinations support and elucidate one another. Chapter 2: ● It is commonly believed that this conservative disposition is pretty deeply rooted in what is called ‘human nature’. ● Change is tiring, innovation calls for effort, and human beings are more apt to be lazy than energetic. ● Primitive people are said to cling to what is familiar and to be averse from change; ancient myth is full of warnings against innovation; our folklore and proverbial wisdom about the conduct of like abounds in conservative percepts; and how many tears are shed by children in their unwilling accommodation to change. ● Wherever a firm identity has been achieved, and wherever identity is felt to be precariously balanced, a conservative disposition is likely to prevail. ● On the other hand, the disposition of adolescence is often predominantly adventurous and experimental; when we are young, nothing seems more desirable than to take a chance; pas de risque, pas de plaisir. ● There is a positive prejudice in favor of the yet untried. ● While the conservative, if he were forced to gamble, would bet on the field, we are disposed to back our individual fancies with little calculation and no apprehension of loss. Oct 16; tutorial questions: 1. How does conservatism differ from liberalism? In what areas do they most strongly disagree? In what areas are they more similar? Is Oakeshott's conservatism as opposed to Berlinian liberalism as it would be to Rawlsian liberalism? What about its relation with Hayek's liberalism? Both Hayek

The community in conservatism typically arises from a shared history, culture, and a sense of belonging. It's not necessarily about rejecting all external influences but about preserving the core values and attachments that bind a community together. One could potentially reject Oakeshott's idea of "extra-human origins of the social order" and still identify as a conservative, but they might interpret conservatism in a slightly different way. Oakeshott's view emphasizes the non-ideological and gradual nature of societal development, but not all conservatives need to adopt this exact perspective. 3. 3. If "Oakeshott presents conservatism as a 'disposition' rather than a clear set of rules, theories, and conclusions. Do you find this approach compelling? Can one both have a conservative disposition and endorse alternative ideological frameworks (i.e. liberalism, socialism, theocratic thought)? How do we separate 'organic' and 'artificial' change? Oakeshott's view of conservatism as a disposition rather than a set of strict rules or theories has its merits. It allows for flexibility and adaptability within the conservative framework, emphasizing an organic and gradual approach to societal change. This perspective does not necessarily preclude individuals from endorsing alternative ideological frameworks. It's possible for someone to have a conservative disposition while also appreciating certain aspects of liberalism, socialism, or theocratic thought. The separation of "organic" and "artificial" change within this context is somewhat subjective. Conservatives tend to favor change that aligns with tradition and emerges naturally, while they may be more cautious about change that is imposed through grand ideological schemes or rapid social engineering. However, the distinction between the two can be a matter of interpretation and debate, and different conservatives may have varying views on what constitutes acceptable change. Oct 16; tutorial questions (cont’d) 1. Question 1: - Value the familiar to the unfamiliar - They conserve in the present - The deposition is in a familiar way - More interested in balancing - The conservative may be interested in securing/protecting the persons state rather than looking for improvements Oct 23; week 6 reading: Why Not Socialism? ● The question that forms the title of this paper is not intended rhetorically I. The Camping Trip

● You and I, and a number of people fo on a camping trip ● There is no hierarchy among us; our common aim is that each of us should have a hood time, doing, so far as possible, the things that he or she likes best ● It is commonly true on camping trips, and on certain small-scale projects of other kinds, that we cooperate within a concern that, so far as is possible, everybody has a roughly similar opportunity to flourish ● In these contexts most people, even most anti-egalitarians, accept, indeed, take for granted, a norm of equality ● You could imagine a camping trip where everyone asserts her rights over the pieces of equipment and the talents that she brings, and where bargaining proceeds with respect to who is going to pay what to whom ● Most people would hate it. Most people would be drawn to the first kind of camping trip than the second, primarily on grounds of fellowship ● And this means that most people are drawn to the socialists ideal, at least in certain settings ● Of course, not everybody likes camping trips ● I do not myself enjoy them much, because i am not outdoorsy, or, at any rate, i am not outdoorsy overnight-wise II. The Principles Realized on the Camping Trip ● I want to state two principles that are realized on the camping trip: 1. An egalitarian principle 2. A principle of community ● The community principle constrains the operation of the egalitarian principle, by forbidding certain inequalities of outcome that the egalitarian principle permits ● There are in fact, a number of competing egalitarian principles with which the camping trup, as i have describe it, complies, because the circumstances of the trip, unlike more complex circumstances, make it unnecessary to choose among them ● Equality to opportunity, whether moderate or radical, removes obstacles to opportunity from which psome people suffer and others do not, obstacles that are sometimes due to the enhanced opportunities that privileged people enjoy ● We can distinguish three obstacles to opportunity and three corresponding dorms of equality of opportunity 1. The first form removes the obstacle 2. The second form removes that one and a second 3. And the third form removes all three ● First, there is what might be called bourgeois equality of opportunity, the quality of opportunity that characterizes the liberal age - Bourgeois equality of opportunity removes socially constructed status restrictions on life chances, of both formal and informal kinds - E.g. formal status restriction is that under which a serf labors in a feudal system; it is part of the law of that society that he must remain where he is, socially speaking - E.g. informal status restriction is that from which a person whose skin is the wrong color may suffer in a society free of racist law but nevertheless possessed of a racist consciousness - ● The first form of equality of opportunity widens people’s opportunities by removing constraints on opportunity caused by rights assignments and by bigoted and other prejudicial social perceptions

● There are two contrasting reasons why society wide communism might be though infeasible, and it is very important, both intellectually and politically, to distinguish them 1. The first reason has to do with human motivation, 2. The second with social technology ● Selfishness and generosity exist, after all, in everyone V. Market Socialism ● Nineteenth-century socialists were for the most part opposed to market organization of economic life ● Today, among socialist intellectuals an intelligent movement in the direction of a non-planning or minimally planning market, socialist society, but there is also, i believe, an unthinking and fashion-driven rush in that direction ● Market socialism is socialist because it overcomes the division between capital and labor; there is, in market socialism, no class of capitalists facing workers who own no capital, since workers themselves own the firms ● Equality is prejudiced because market competition leads to inequality between winners and losers ● Community too, is prejudiced because exchange under market socialism is no less market exchange than it is under capitalism ● True reciprocity express rather than merely implicit reciprocity, does not prevail at the heart of market transactions VI. Coda ● The difficulties facing achievement of a socialist ideal are awesome, but the negative epithets hurled at the socialist ideal by erstwhile ‘democratic socialists’, such as those in Britain who gather under the banner of ‘New Labor,’ epithets like ‘mechanical equality’ or ‘sameness of outcome’ represent a failure to think through what the ideal implies and/or a semi-deliberate attempt to replace argument by rhetorical ● The epithets are inappropriate because the socialist ideal does not enforce sameness of outcome in the relevant sense of a deadly uniformity in which everybody is wearing a Mao Jacket ● Politically serious people must take those obstacles seriously ● Disparaging the ideal because it faces those obstacles lead to confusion and confusion generates disoriented practice; there are contexts in which the ideal can be advanced, but is pushed forward less resolutely than it might be because of lack of clarity about what the ideal is ● The socialist aspiration is to extend community to the whole of our economic life Oct 23; tutorial questions 1. Gerry Cohen argues that principles of equality and reciprocity are both normatively desirable and effective principles of organization. To argue this, he uses the example of a camping trip. Does his account of small scale social cooperation work? Does this mirror how you and your friends act in cooperative settings? Is this type of corporate self-rule desirable? Can these forms of reciprocal, cooperative relations be implemented on a larger scale? Or do such communities only work on the small scale?

- Gerry Cohen's argument about small-scale social cooperation using principles of equality and reciprocity can work effectively in certain situations, like a camping trip, where participants are few, familiar with each other, and share common goals. - It can mirror how many friends and small groups cooperate in less formal settings. - Whether this type of corporate self-rule is desirable depends on the context and the values of the individuals involved. - Some may find it appealing for small, closely-knit communities, while others may prefer more complex and structured forms of governance for larger organizations. - Implementing these principles on a larger scale is challenging due to the complexities and diverse interests of larger societies. - While elements of equality and reciprocity can be integrated, larger communities often require more structured systems to address these challenges. - So, while such principles can be desirable and effective in small-scale settings, they may need to be adapted for larger communities. 2. What are the three types of equality of opportunity? How do they differ? Which type of equality of opportunity do you find most compelling? What sorts of inequalities do they allow for? - The three types of equality of opportunity are: 1. Formal Equality of Opportunity: This type focuses on ensuring that everyone has an equal starting point, primarily by eliminating legal and overt barriers to access. It aims to provide equal access to education, employment, and other opportunities. However, it does not address the effects of socio-economic or cultural factors on individuals. 2. Material Equality of Opportunity: This type goes beyond formal equality and aims to address socio-economic disparities. It seeks to provide resources and support to individuals to ensure they have a more level playing field. It recognizes that some individuals may need additional help to achieve equal opportunities. 3. Substantive Equality of Opportunity: This is the most comprehensive type, as it not only addresses legal and socio-economic barriers but also cultural and societal biases. It strives to create a genuinely fair and equitable environment where all individuals have a genuine chance to succeed, regardless of their background. - The preference for a specific type of equality of opportunity depends on one's values and beliefs. - Formal equality of opportunity focuses on removing legal barriers, while substantive equality aims for a more thorough transformation of societal norms. - The most compelling type may vary from person to person. - The different types of equality of opportunity allow for varying degrees of inequality. - Formal equality allows for more disparities as it mainly deals with legal obstacles. - Material and substantive equality aim to reduce socio-economic and cultural inequalities more significantly.

forms of government as such - a belief that in principle would have to be independent of the desirability of results. ● In particular, we still remain under the practical necessity of attributing to the will of the individual an independence and a rational quality that are altogether unrealistic Nov 6; week 8 reading ● In a much quoted passage in his inaugural address, President Kennedy said, ‘as now what your country can do for you ask what you can do for your country.’ ● It is a striking sign of the temper of our times that the controversy about this passage centered on its origin and not on its content ● The paternalistic ‘what your country can do for you’ implies the government is the patro, the citizen the ward, a view that is at odds with the free man’s belief in his own responsibility for his own destiny ● The organismic, ‘what you can do for your country’ implies that government is the master of the deity, the citizen, the servant or the votary ● To be the free man, the country is the collection of individuals who compose it, not something over and above them ● He recognizes no national goal except as it is the consensus of the gold that the citizens severally serve ● The free man will ask neither what his country can do for him not what he can do for his country ● Freedom is a rare and delicate plant ● Our minds tell us, and history confirms that the great threat to freedom is the concentration of power ● Government is to preserve our freedom, it is an instrument through which we can exercise our freedom; yet by concentrating power in political hands, it is also a threat to freedom ● Two broad principles embodied in our constitution give an answer that has preserved our freedom so far, though they have been violated repeatedly in practice proclaimed as precept ● First, the scope of government must be limited - Its major function must be to protect our freedom both from the enemies outside our gates and from our fellow-citizens; to preserve law and order, to enforce private contracts, to foster competitive markets ● Beyond this major function, government may enable us to times to accomplish jointly what we would find it more difficult or expensive to accomplish severally ● The second broad principle is that government power must be dispersed ● If government is to exercise power, better in the county than in state, better in the state than in washington ● The very difficulty of avoiding the enactments of the federal government is of course the great attraction of centralization to many of its proponents ● It will enable more effectively, they believe, to legislate programs that as they see it are in the interest of the public, whether it be the transfer of income from the rich to the poor of from private to governmental purposes ● The power to do good is also the power to do harm; those who control the power today may not tomorrow; and, more important, what one man regards as good, another may regard as harm ● The preservation of freedom is the protective reason for limiting and decentralizing governmental power ● But there is also a constructive reason

- The great advances of civilization, whether in architecture or painting, in science of literature, in industry or agriculture, have never come from centralized government ● Government can never duplicate the variety and diversity of individual action ● But in the process, government would replace progress by stagnation, it would substitute uniform mediocrity for the variety essential for that experimentation which can bring tomorrow laggards above today’s mean ● This book discusses some of these great issues - Its major theme is the role of competitive capitalism the organization of the bulk of economic activity through private enterprise operating in a free market as a system of economic freedom and a necessary condition of political freedom - Its minor theme is the role that government should play in a society dedicated to freedom and relying primarily on the market to organize economic activity ● The change in the meaning attached to the term liberalism is more striking in economic matters than in political ● The twentieth-century liberal, like the nineteenth century liberal, favors parliamentary institutions, representative government, civil rights and so on ● Yet even in political matters, there is a notable difference - Jealous of liberty, and hence fearful of centralized power, whether in governmental or private hands, the nineteenth century liberal favored political decentralization ● Committed to action and confident of the beneficence of power so long as it is in the hands of a government ostensibly controlled by the electorate, the twentieth century liberal favors centralized government ● Based of the corruption of the term liberalism, the views that formerly went under the name are now often labeled conservatism Chapter 1: The Relation Between Economic Freedom and Political Freedom ● It is widely believed that political and economics are separate and ;largely unconnected; that individual freedom is a political problem and material welfare an economic problem; and that any kind of political arrangements can be combined with any kind of economic arrangements ● Economic arrangements play a dual rule in the promotion of a free society - On the other hand, freedom is economic arrangements is itself a component of freedom broadly understood, so economic freedom is an end in itself - In second place, economic freedom is also an indispensable means toward the achievement of political freedom ● The first of these roles of economic freedom needs special emphasis because intellectuals in particular have a strong bias against regarding this aspect of freedom as important ● For most citizens of the country, however, if not the intellectual, the direct importance of economic freedom is at least comparable in significance to the indirect importance of economic freedom as a means to political freedom ● Viewed as a means to the end of political freedom, economic arrangements are important because of their effect on the concentration or dispersion of power ● The king of economic organization that provides economic freedom directly, namely, competitive capitalism, also promotes political freedom because it separates economic power from political power and in this way enables the one to offset the other

● Economic power can be widely dispersed ● There is no law of conversation which forces the growth of new centers of economic strength to be at the expense of existing centers ● Political power, on the other hand, is more difficult to decentralize ● One feature of a free society is surely the freedom of individuals to advocate and propagandize openly for a radical change in the structure of the society so long as the advocacy is restricted to persuasion and does not include force or other forms of coercion ● In order for men to advocate anything, they must in the first place be able to earn a living - This already raises a problem in a socialist society, since all jobs are under the direct control of political authorities ● In a capitalist society, it is only necessary to convince a few wealthy people to get funds to launch any idea, however strange, and there are many such persons, many independent foci of support ● In this way, the market breaks the vicious circle and makes it possible ultimately to finance such ventures by small amounts from many people without first persuading them ● Moreover, freedom to advocate unpopular causes does not require that such advocacy be without cost ● On the contrary, no society could be stable if advocacy of radical change were costless, much less subsidized ● Perhaps there is some way in which one could overcome these difficulties and preserve freedom in a socialist society Chapter 2: The Role of Government in a Free Society ● A common objection to totalitarian societies is that they regard the end as justifying the means ● To the liberal, the appropriate means are free discussion and voluntary cooperation, which implies that any form of coercion is inappropriate ● The ideal is unanimity among responsible individuals achieved on the basis of free and full discussion ● From this standpoint, the role of the market, as already noted, is that it permits unanimity without conformity; that it is a system of effectively proportional representation ● On the other hand, the characteristic feature of action through explicitly political channels is that it tends to require or to enforce substantial conformity ● The use of political channels, while inevitable, tends to strain the social cohesion essential for a stable society ● The strain is least if agreement for joint action need to be reached only on a limited range of issues on which people in any event have common views ● The widespread use of the market reduces the strain on the social fabric by rendering conformity unnecessary with respect to any activities it encompasses ● The self-denying ordinance to refrain from majority rule on certain kinds of issues that is embodied in our constitution and in similar written or unwritten constitutions elsewhere, and the specific provisions in these constitutions or their equivalents prohibiting coercion of individuals, are themselves to be regarded as reached by free discussion and as reflecting essential unanimity about means Government as Rule-Maker and Umpire ● It is important to distinguish the day to day activities of people from the general customary and legal framework within which these take place

● The need for government in these respects arises because absolute freedom is impossible ● Mens freedoms can conflict, and when they do, one mans freedom must be limited to preserve another’s Supreme COurt Justice once put it, ‘My Freedom to move my fist be limited by the proximity of your chin’ ● The major problem in deciding the appropriate activities of government is how to resolve such conflicts among the freedoms of different individuals ● In summary, the organization of economic activity through voluntary exchange presumes that we have provided, through government, for the maintenance of law and order to prevent coercion of one individual by another, the enforcement of contracts voluntarily entered into, the definition of the meaning of property rights, the interpretation and enforcement of such rights, and the provision of a monetary framework Action through Government on Grounds of Technical Monopoly and Neighborhood Effects ● The role of government just considered is to do something that the market cannot do for itself, namely, to determine arbitrate and enforce the rules of the game ● Exchange is truly voluntary only when nearly equivalent alternatives exist ● Monopoly implies the absence of alternatives and thereby inhibits effective freedom of exchange ● When technical conditions make a monopoly the natural outcome of competitive market forces, there are only three alternatives that seem available; private monopoly, public monopoly, or public regulation ● If society were static so that the conditions which give rise to a technical monopoly were such to remain, i would have little confidence in this solution ● The choice between the evils of private monopoly, public monopoly, and public regulation cannot, however, be made once and for all, independently of the factual circumstances ● Technical monopoly may on occasion justify a de facto public monopoly ● It cannot be itself justify a public monopoly achieved by making it illegal for anyone else to compete Nov 6; tutorial questions 1. What is the link between economic and political freedom in Friedman? Why is capitalism necessary for freedom? Does the connection make sense? - Milton Friedman, a prominent economist, argued that there is a strong link between economic and political freedom. - He believed that capitalism is necessary for freedom because it allows individuals to make choices about their economic well-being, which in turn influences their political freedoms. - According to Friedman, economic freedom fosters individual autonomy and reduces the power of the government, leading to a more open and democratic society. - The connection between economic and political freedom, as he saw it, makes sense because economic choices and political choices are interconnected, and limiting economic freedom can lead to restrictions on political freedom. 2. Why is Friedman afraid of government overreach? What does he propose to limit the risk?

- The distinction relates to pluralism in that populism often rejects the idea of diverse interests peacefully coexisting, instead framing politics as a struggle between the 'pure' will of the people and a supposedly self-serving elite. 2. Many scholars claim populism increased largely as a response to insecurity. Does this explanation make sense to you? What macroeconomic trends would be producing this insecurity? - Yes, the explanation that populism increased in response to insecurity makes sense. Economic insecurity, fueled by factors such as globalization, technological change, and income inequality, contributes to a sense of economic anxiety among certain segments of the population. - Job displacement, wage stagnation, and perceived threats to national identity can result from these trends, fostering a fertile ground for populist movements. - Economic insecurities can fuel a desire for political change and a rejection of established elites seen as responsible for these challenges. 3. 'Populism' is applied to political movements both on the left and the right, does this make sense to you? Or are there important distinctions between these two types of 'populism'? - Yes, it makes sense. Populism can manifest on both the left and the right, sharing the common feature of pitting a 'people' against an 'elite.' - However, the specific issues, grievances, and policy solutions can vary significantly between left-wing and right-wing populism. - Left-wing populism may focus on economic inequality and social justice, while right-wing populism often emphasizes national identity, immigration, and cultural values. - The distinctions lie in the ideological foundations and policy priorities, despite the shared anti-elite sentiment. Nov 20; week 10 & 11 reading Nov 20; week 10 & 11 tutorial 1. What are the defining characteristics of modern authoritarianism? Can these characteristics be generalized? Where do we draw the line between flawed democracies and modern authoritarianism? - Defining characteristics of modern authoritarianism include centralized power, erosion of political pluralism, controlled media, restrictions on civil liberties, limited rule of law, electoral manipulation, nationalism/populism, and surveillance. - Generalizing these characteristics helps identify patterns, but distinctions vary. The line between flawed democracies and modern authoritarianism depends on the extent of democratic erosion,

such as the systematic undermining of institutions, suppression of opposition, and concentration of power in an elite few. 2. Modern authoritarianism can be understood more as a method of holding power, than as a set of normative principles. What normative ideas do modern authoritarians appeal to? - Modern authoritarians often appeal to nationalist and populist ideologies, emphasizing the need for strong leadership, cultural or ethnic identity, and national unity. - They may also frame their rule as a means to restore order, stability, and economic prosperity, even if it involves limiting individual freedoms and democratic principles. 3. One critique of liberal democracy is that it is Eurocentric. How does this relate to modern authoritarianism? How can states balance both their own cultural practices and universalist claims to democracy and justice? - Critics argue that liberal democracy can be Eurocentric, imposing Western values on diverse cultures. - Modern authoritarians often exploit this criticism to promote cultural relativism and assert the legitimacy of their own governance models. - States can balance cultural practices and universalist claims by promoting inclusive dialogue, adapting democratic principles to local contexts, and respecting human rights while recognizing cultural diversity. Nov 27; week 10 & 11 reading Nov 27; week 10 & 11 tutorial 1. What is cultural relativism? What is moral relativism? How do appeals to ‘asian values’ relate to said relativism? Is relativism appealing to you? - 2. What is multiculturalism? What group rights can multiculturalism require? Why does Okin think there can be a conflict between multiculturalism and feminism? - 3. How does relativism and multiculturalism relate? Where should we draw the line between respecting specific practices and traditions and upholding universalist moral claims? -