As a group prepare a class-interactive presentation based on the tutorial topic that will be allocated to you in the first tutorial. The presentation will last for the duration of the tutorial (including activities, media presentation, and class discussion)

You must integrate tutorial questions (see Unit Schedule) into your presentation, but your presentation must include more than simply posing the questions to the class. Furthermore, each member of the group must deliver an oral presentation of 5 minutes during the course of the presentation demonstrating an understanding of one of the readings or some aspect of the readings.

Your presentation should include various activities and media including:

• Class debates
• Role-plays
• Quizzes
• Video clips (not exceeding 10 minutes)

The group mark will be graded on:

• The group's demonstrated grasp of the essential readings
• Ability to keep the class engaged in serious discussion of the texts and ideas raised in them, either as  a whole or in small groups (each group monitored by the presenters)
• Use of creative ideas and media as a springboard to class discussion of the texts and ideas under review

Write 750 words on the following question:

What is the paradox of democracy that Gordon Graham speaks of and do you think that he adequately resolves it?

• You will be graded on your ability to convey an understanding of Graham's argument.
• You do not need to research beyond Graham.

Choose ONE of the following questions and write a 1500 word response.

Question 1.

Compare and contrast the treatment of rhetoric in the political thought of Plato and Aristotle. Which view do you find more compelling?

Readings:

Primary

• Aristotle, The Art of Rhetoric (any edition)
• Plato, Gorgias and Republic (any editions)

Secondary

• Glenn Morrow, 'Plato's Concept of Persuasion', The Philosophical Review, Vol. 62, no. 2, April 1953, pp. 234-250.
• Rollin W. Quimby, 'The Growth of Plato's Perception of Rhetoric', Philosophy and Rhetoric, Vol. 7, no. 2, Spring 1974, pp. 71-79.
• Bernard Yack, 'Rhetoric and Public Reasoning: An Aristotelian Understanding of Political Deliberation, Political Theory, Vol. 34, no. 4, August 2006, pp.417-438.
• *H.C. Lawson-Tancred, 'Introduction' to Aristotle's The Art of Rhetoric (Penguin ed.)
• *Michael Oakeshott, 'Political Discourse', Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays (Liberty Press, 1991)

Question 2.

‘Both Machiavelli in The Prince and More in Utopia are concerned with the relationship between virtue and politics yet they seem to differ considerably about the nature of this relationship.’ Critically discuss this statement.

Readings:

Primary

• Machiavelli, The Prince (any edition)
• More, Utopia (any edition)

Secondary

• *Anglo, Sydney Machiavelli: A Dissection, ch7
•  *Ball, Terrance, ‘The Picaresque Prince: Reflections on Machiavelli and Moral Change’, Political Theory, Vol.12 No.4, November 1984, pp.521-536.
• *Bradshaw, Brendan, 'More on Utopia', The Historical Journal, vol.24, no. 1, March 1981, pp. 1-27.
• *Engerman, Thomas, ‘Hythloday's Utopia and More's England: an Interpretation of Thomas More's Utopia', The Journal of Politics, vol. 44, no. 1, Feb. 1982.
• Hexter, J.H., ‘The Loom of Language and the Fabric of Imperatives: The case of Il Principe and Utopia’, The American Historical Review, Vol. LXIX, no. 4, July 1964, 945-968. Reprinted in J. Dunn and I. Harris (eds.) Machiavelli, Vol 2, (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 1997).
• *Major, Rafael, ‘A New Argument for Morality: Machiavelli and the Ancients’, Political Research Quarterly, Vol.60, no.2, June 2007, pp.171-179.
• Mindle, Grant, ‘Machiavelli’s Realism’, The Review of Politics, Vol. 47, No.2, April 1985, 212-230
• Nendza, James, ‘Political Idealism in More’s “Utopia”’, The Review of Politics, Vol. 46, No. 3, July 1984, 428-451
• *Trevor-Roper, Hugh, ‘Sir Thomas More and Utopia’, Renaissance Essays (London: Secker & Warburg, 1985)
• *Wood, Neal, ‘Machiavelli’s Concept of Virtù Reconsidered’, Political Studies, XV, 1967, Issue 2, pp.159-172.

Question 3

Some commentators have interpreted Hobbes as a defender of despotism, if not totalitarianism; others have depicted him as pointing the way to modern liberalism. Where do you think the truth lies?

Readings

Primary

• Hobbes, Leviathan (any edition)

Secondary

• Arendt, Hannah, The Origins of Totalitarianism (New York: Harcourt Jovanovich, 1973), pp. 139-147. (Relevant section on ilearn site)
• *Judd Owen, J. ‘The Tolerant Leviathan: Hobbes and the Paradox of Liberalism’, Polity, Vol. 37, No. 1 (Jan., 2005), pp. 130-148.
• *Ryan, Alan. ‘Hobbes and Individualism’, in G.J.A. Rogers and A. Ryan (eds.) Perspectives on Thomas Hobbes (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988). (On ilearn site)  
• *Tarlton, Charles D., ‘to avoyd the present stroke of death:’ Despotical Dominion, Force, and Legitimacy in Hobbes's Leviathan’, Philosophy, Vol.  74, Issue 2, March 1999, pp 221 – 245.
• Tregenza, Ian, ‘Leviathan as Myth: Michael Oakeshott and Carl Schmitt on Hobbes and the Critique of Rationalism, Contemporary Political Theory, 2002, no.1, pp. 349-369 (On ilearn site)
• *Van Mill, David, ‘Civil Liberty in Hobbes's Commonwealth’, Australian Journal of Political Science, Mar 2002, Vol. 37 Issue 1, pp. 21-38.
• *Walter, Ryan, ‘Hobbes, Liberalism, and Political Technique’, The European Legacy: Towards new Paradigms, Vol. 16, issue 1, 2011, pp. 53-69.

(Internals) Two hour invigilated examination on campus. Details TBA.

(Externals) Take-home examination. Details TBA.

Your participation mark will be based on the quality of your contribution. The quality of your contribution is judged by the extent to which what you have to say is informed by a sound reading of the texts under discussion. Just because you say a lot does not mean that you will get a good participation mark. 

External students will be marked on the quality of their posts in the online discussion.