University of Texas at El Paso



PHIL 3325: SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY (ONLINE)

CRN: 18555

DR. STEVE BEST

FALL 2018

OFFICE HOURS: WEDNESDAYS, 2-4 PM, WORRELL HALL 301

OFFICE PHONE: 915-747-5097

EMAIL: best@utep.edu

"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." Voltaire

"He is a philosopher who tramples underfoot prejudices, tradition, antiquity, universal assent, authority, in a word, everything that overawes the mass of minds, who dares to think for himself, to go back to the clearest general principles, examine them, discuss them, admit nothing save on the testimony of his experience and reasoning." Diderot

“All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke

“Indifference is not a response. Indifference is not a beginning; it is an end. And, therefore, indifference is always the friend of the enemy, for it benefits the aggressor -- never his victim.” Elie Wiesel

“Cowardice asks the question, `Is it safe?’ Expediency asks the question, `Is it politic?’And Vanity comes along and asks the question, `Is it popular?’ But Conscience asks the question `Is it right?’ And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must do it because Conscience tells him it is right.” Martin Luther King, Jr.

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." Martin Luther King, Jr.

“Philosophers have only interpreted the world; the point, however, is to change it.” Karl Marx

"Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe." H. G. Wells

“If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning.” Frederick Douglass

"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people." —V

"The favored few luxuriate in the toil of the tortured many" – W.B. Du Bois

“I think that it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and to revolutionize. What makes this duty the more urgent is the fact that the country so overrun is not our own, but ours is the invading army.” Henry David Thoreau

“The world only goes forward because of those who oppose it.” Goethe

Course Description

“Social philosophy” is a very vague and broad term, and a subset of philosophy with no orthodox narrative or approach. Unlike other branches of philosophy, it is not concerned with questions such as: “Does God exist?” Do we have free will”? or “How do we know the world and how reliable is our knowledge?” Whereas such issues stem from metaphysics and epistemology, social philosophy is concerned with tangible human affairs and earthly interactions, such as relate to issues of domination, power, and resistance; legality and civil disobedience; and violence and nonviolence. Most generally, social philosophy examines the origins, evolution, and dynamics of change in society, including what forces, such as class struggle and social movements, are key motors of transformation.

This course covers many classical thinkers and debates throughout the course of Western history, from the ancient Greeks to the late-twentieth century. From Plato to Thoreau, Augustine to Nietzsche, Rousseau to Dewey, and from Marx and Freud to Dewey and beyond, we will examine issues pertaining to human nature, the purpose of society and state, the tension between society and individual, the expanse and limits of rights, violence and pacifism, law and civil disobedience, war and terrorism, as well a questioning of “civilization” itself, and whether the technological development and growing complexification of society is better viewed as progress or regress.

Course Purpose and Goals

Key objectives of this course are to introduce students to traditional philosophical figures, theories, and traditions, and to constantly relate these to current issues and problems in our contemporary world.

By the end of the course, ideally, I hope that each student will:

➢ Be able to identify key figures, traditions, themes, and problems in the history of philosophy

➢ Know the core themes and issues of each main branch of philosophy

➢ Identify enduring questions and topics that are perennial themes in the history of philosophy

➢ Understand the importance of philosophy in one’s daily life, whatever one’s career profession

➢ Develop a great joy for reading, learning, and thinking

➢ Comprehend and use philosophical methods and techniques of thinking

➢ Apply critical thinking skills to various texts (articles, books, videos, etc) and diverse areas of personal and social life

➢ Be more capable in debate and argumentation, and in reflecting on ethical issues as they relate to their own life and to the contemporary world

➢ Become more autonomous as a person and better decision-maker

➢ Become a citizen instead of a consumer – a concerned, informed, and active person, involved in the community and in civic life

Course Requirements and Grading

The class is 7 weeks long, and each week is a different and coherent unit unto itself, yet each also builds on and advances preceding lessons. Each module is divided into sections, which include:

➢ An italicized overview of the topics

➢ A background lecture

➢ A set of reading assignments

➢ Questions and issues for discussion, review, and self-evaluation

➢ Suggested further research for maximal learning

The discussion section provides questions and materials for students to critically reflect on in posts and conversations with one another, their groups, and myself. Students are encouraged to introduce their own perspectives, questions, and topics. The review section summarizes the key ideas you should have mastered for each section and serves as a self-examination to assess your comprehension of the material.

There are no textbooks to buy for this course; all course material is online and free, and linked in the syllabus reading assignments. It is crucial that you do all reading assignments on time and keep up with the syllabus and discussion. In addition to doing all the reading assignments, and demonstrating a good understand and ideally critical grasp of the main ideas, students are required to participate regularly and meaningfully in online discussion, engaging other students, and to write a final exam.

Note: this class may prove difficult: there is a fair amount of work to do in a short period of time, do not take it lightly or underestimate the challenge you will face, as well as the rewards you will gain. Immediately below and in the next section, I clarify what I expect in the 2 different areas I will evaluate your work and which will comprise your final grade:

I. Discussion Posts

I expect each student to make a minimum of 3 original INDEPENDENT discussion posts per week. These are to be responses to chosen discussion topics which I have written up in the “Discussion” section following the assignments list for each week. These same questions are reproduced in the Blackboard discussion section. Do NOT attempt to respond to all questions and topics, it is impossible to do justice to more than three.

I deem a “quality” discussion post to fulfill key criteria such as the following:

➢ It is 3-5 GOOD paragraphs in length, 4-5 sentences per paragraph

➢ It is clear and coherent in meaning, syntax, and style

➢ It reflects a full reading and accurate understanding of the course material being

➢ It displays an ability to relate the issues, themes, and problems addressed in the material to other topics, current events, or other figures, themes, and texts generally; and

➢ It demonstrates a grasp of “philosophical” thinking in its ability, for instance, to define terms, separate various issues and draw relevant distinctions, and critically analyze (rather than take at face value as true) and challenge claims made by authors, commentators, and philosophers. No argument or theory is flawless, perfect or immune to questioning)

IN ADDITION, I am looking for evidence of INTERACTIVE posts whereby you comment on others’ thoughts and they comment on yours. These need not be as carefully constructed and thought out as you primary posts, and can be improvisational and free flowing as a good discussion would be. At the same time, they must be more substantive that merely agreeing with or “liking” another’s post without saying why and saying more. You should have a minimum of THREE comments PER WEEK on posts from other students in the class, and allow an open discussion dynamic.

Thus, that is a minimum of 6 posts a week (3 independent and 3 interactive), and 42 for the entire course, 21 posts in each (independent and interactive) category. Roughly, 42 good total posts would constitute an “A,” 32 would make a “B,” and 25 would be a “C,” etc., for your discussion grade.

To summarize and clarify:

• You are to chose 3 questions to address

• Each independent post is to be substantive, thought through, and well-composed, and at least 3-5 good paragraphs in length

• The interactive posts in no way need to be as long, but nor should they be thin, one sentence replies to someone (“Really liked your point, Jose!”) without elaborating on why one agrees or disagrees with someone else

• The idea of the interactive posts is to critically dialogue with other students about philosophical issues and thus to allow free play

• Do all the required reading first, making notes; then respond to the discussion questions that most interest you

• At the same time, read what other students have posted and do the minimum responses to any post that interests you most

• Begin the reading for each module on each Monday and complete your posts by the following Sunday, try to keep up with the pace

As philosophy is no doubt new to almost everyone in this course, I expect modest evidence of critical reading and thinking skills at first, but also to see gradually improvement and real learning demonstrated as the course proceeds. See the next section below on posting etiquette; I also expect polite, civil, and respectful tones to be maintained in class discussion at all times.

II. Final Exam

The final exam is a “take-home” and is to be 6-8 pages in length, double-spaced, and using a 12 point font. The final exam is comprehensive in nature, and thus will cover the entire semester’s course material. The questions will be handed out at least a week before the due date. You may discuss the exam with other class members should that prove helpful, but you must write wholly independent of one another and in your own words, or risk plagiarism (see below).

Final Grade

The final grade for the course will be broken down as follows:

Discussion forum participation: 50%

Final Essay exam: 50%

I will provide general class feedback on performance after the first and second week, and I will provide each of you individual feedback on your posts after the third week, for weeks 1-3 only, so that you can improve in weeks 4-7 if need be.

Online Etiquette

When you log on for discussion, be prepared by having done the reading and assignments, and also be active and strive to put philosophical skills and methods into practice. Because of the controversial nature of the topics we will explore, there will naturally be differences in viewpoint, and thus arguments. But disagreements need not be disagreeable, and the clash of ideas is vital to learning, the enterprise of philosophy, and personal growth.

It is imperative that you always express yourself and interact with others with sincerity, honesty, kindness, and respect. Humility, openness, and self-questioning are cardinal virtues in philosophy, whereas dogma, arrogance, and closed-mindedness are debilitating vices. Whatever your views, don’t assume they are the best or correct ones, that they cannot or should not be modified or even abandoned, or that you cannot learn from dialogue with others. Please avoid self-righteousness, hostility, ridicule, sarcasm, or other disrespectful behaviors.

While of course I encourage your active participation in class discussions, please seek the Golden Mean: speak not too little, nor too much; be neither passive, nor aggressive. Your grade for the discussion part of the course will be based on the quantity of your contribution (doing the minimum required posting) and the quality of your input, based on accuracy of understanding texts and ideas, creative application of ideas, critical thinking skills, and ability to dialogue and argue in productive, persuasive, and interesting ways.

Students are not expected or required to believe any particular viewpoint or to agree with me on any issue, in fact you may freely disagree with and challenge me when you find it productive to do so. But you are asked to be open to exploring different viewpoints and challenging ideas, and to think critically about your own assumptions, received values, and worldview. This class asks you to study new information, to understand and critically assess ideas, and to apply new ideas and skills toward your everyday life and involvement in this world in crisis.

Contacting Me and Tech Support

Students of course may freely contact me at any time they have a concern, question, or need. My email is: best@utep.edu, and phone is: 915-747-5097.

If you are new to online courses, you will want to take the Blackboard tutorials, which you can find by clicking on the “Help” link at the top right of the front page (see: ; and: ). You may also contact the Technology Support Help Desk, which lists hours of operation, phone numbers, and other relevant information here: .

Plagiarism Policy

Regarding your presentations and final exam, plagiarism will not be tolerated. Any use of material from reference works not cited, footnoted, quoted, or paraphrased in your own words, or any two student exams too closely resembling one another, is considered plagiarism. Instances of suspected plagiarism will be reported to the Dean of Students, and thereafter no questions will be asked or taken. For the UTEP plagiarism policy, see: .

Disability Statement

If you have a disability and need classroom accommodations, please contact The Center for Accommodations and Support Services (CASS) at 747-5148, or by email to cass@utep.edu, or visit their office located in UTEP Union East, Room 106. For additional information, please visit the CASS website at sa.utep.edu/cass.

*************************************************

Weekly Assignments and Modules

Week I, October 22: Ancient Greece: Reason, Democracy, and the Good Life

As the classical “beginning” of Western society, Ancient Greece was a diverse, complex, dynamic, brilliant, and yet flawed, fractious, turbulent, and problematic culture. Yet with its pioneering development of architecture, drama, philosophy, rational inquiry and critical thinking, and institutions of direct democracy, the creative genius of Greece in many ways remains unsurpassed to this day. It is no surprise that ancient Greece was a key source of inspiration for the Renaissance and Enlightenment eras (in the 15th-19 centuries), after more than a thousand years of Christendom, dogmatism, persecution, debasement of humanity, and repression of free and rational inquiry. Indeed, its culture, philosophy, and participatory democracy continue to inspire us to this day.

Lecture #1: Greek Philosophy and the Rise and Fall of Democracy ((this and all lectures for each week are uploaded to the Blackboard lecture section of the course)

Reading

“Presocratics”



“Pre-Socratic Philosophy”



“Greek Thought: Socrates, Plato and Aristotle”



“Ancient Political Philosophy”



“Socrates”



“Plato: Political Philosophy”



Plato, “The Allegory of the Cave” (from Book VII of The Republic)



“Aristotle”



“Aristotle’s Political Theory”



Discussion

❖ What do you think are the main contributions the ancient Greeks made to the world today?

❖ How did the change from a culture focused on Gods and mythology change to one centered on science, philosophy, and rational inquiry? What were the main preoccupations of the Presocratics and what did they share in common?

❖ Explain how Greek philosophy challenged traditional thinking and questioned the validity of the religion of the Ancient Greeks.

❖ Describe Socrates’ method of questioning and teaching, and give an example from Plato’s Republic as to how it worked. Do you find his questions always fair and unbiased, or is he less than ingenuous often? Why?

❖ Describe Plato’s theories of the Forms and how he used the cave allegory to illustrate his main ideas. How did Aristotle initiate a major shift in Plato’s thought toward something quite different and original? What common concerns did he still share with Plato?

❖ What is the nature of the human being according to Aristotle? What for him was the purpose of life? Explain his statement that “man is by nature a political animal” and how was the polis suited to developing this nature?

❖ Can you explain the contradiction that classical Greece developed a system of direct or participatory democracy and yet excluded so many people from participating? How did it differ from our modern “representative democracies”? Was their system superior in many ways to the US system of government or inferior, and why? What can you say about the importance of citizen participation on government, and just how weak or non-existent is it in systems such as the US? What skills must citizens have to effectively participate in a democracy, and how should society be arranged best to facilitate this, in terms of things such as education and the size of a city or town? Can you provide a definition of democracy that overcomes the flaws of both ancient and modern “democratic” states?

Review

➢ How and why did ancient Greek philosophers make the turn from a focus on cosmology to society, ethics, and political philosophy?

➢ What is meant by the terms cosmology, ontology, epistemology, political philosophy, and ethics?

➢ What did Socrates mean by his statement that “The unexamined life is not worth living”? Do you find this to be exaggerated or arbitrary or essentially true? Why or why not? Do you find this maxim taken serious in today’s society? Why or why not? Give some examples.

➢ Describe in general terms the main themes, and similarities and differences among Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.

➢ What were the contributions of Solon, Peisistratus, and Cleisthenes to the creation and stability of Athenian democracy?

➢ Under what conditions did Greek democracy emerge, evolve, and decay? What were the main contributions of classical Athenian direct democracy, and what were its key limitations?

Further Research

“A History of Ancient Greece”



Collection of Ancient Greek Documents



“Web MIT Classics Guide”



“Greek Timeline: An Era-by-Era Timeline of Ancient Greece”



“Ancient Greek Writers’ Timeline”



“Internet Ancient History Sourcebook: Greece”



“Ancient Greek Philosophy”



Plato, The Republic (full text)



Democracy Then and Now”



"A History of Greece From the Earliest Times to the Roman Conquest"



“The Rise of Athens and the Athenian Democracy: From Solon to Cleisthenes (with a brief glance at Sparta”



“The History of Democracy”



Week II, October 29: St. Augustine and the “Just War” Tradition

With the fall of the Roman empire and ancient world, a new medieval era was born, and with it a new world power --- Christianity. In place of classic philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, new theorists such as Aquinas and Augustine emerged, engaging and shaping intricate issues in Christian theology and taking up issues such as the nature of a “just war” that continue to be hotly debated today.

Lecture #2: St. Augustine and the Development of Just War Theory

Reading

“Medieval Political Philosophy”



“Augustine’s Political and Social Philosophy”



“Just War Theory”



“Introduction to Just War Theory” (rich collection of essays and resources)



Howard Zinn, “Just and Unjust War”



Chris Hedges, “War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning” (video lecture)



Discussion

➢ In what context did Augustine feel it necessary to distinguish between just and just wars and legitimate the use of violence in particular conditions? How did the assumptions of his theology lead him to defend forms of violence that allegedly advance God’s plan in history?

➢ What problems do you see in Augustine’s theory of predestination?

➢ Pacifists reject the concept of just war as oxymoronic and reject any war as valid or just. Do you agree with this? What is an example of a just war and how does it fit the classical criteria that legitimate war as just?

➢ Is the concept of just war too idealistic, given that corporate, state, and military powers seek victory “by any means necessary” – from violating codes of conduct to torture, killing innocents, and genocide – rather than follow the moral niceties laid down by philosophers and legal theorists?

➢ After 9/11, was President Bush’s invasion of Iraq and then in Afghanistan, and Obama’s subsequent deepening of US military forces in these countries examples of a “just war,” as both have claimed? Why or why not?

➢ What are the main critiques Chris Hedges makes in his powerful denunciation of war and violence as routine forms of state “politics by other means”? Include key ideas such as how war is sold to publics as seductive lies, perpetuated by the media, and which often bring an exhilarating bond to societies. Evaluate his claims and state whether or not he seems to allow for any war as just, and why or why not. Would you prefer the next US President to adopt the views of Augustine or Hedges, and why?

Review

❖ What are some of the key characteristics of medieval philosophy?

❖ What continuities exist between ancient and medieval philosophy, and what discontinuities?

❖ What distinguishes a just from unjust war?

❖ Can you think of examples of a just and unjust war?

❖ What does Howard Zinn add to the discussion?

❖ What critical points does Hedges make relevant to current US wars and global conditions generally?

Further Research

• “War”



• Augustine, The City of God.

• Augustine, On Free Choice of the Will.

• Augustine, Summa Theologica

• Roland Bainton, Christian Attitudes Toward War and Peace: A Historical Survey and Critical Re-evaluation. Nashville: Abington Press, 1960.

• John Mark Mattox, St. Augustine and the Theory of Just War. London: Thoemmes Continuum, 2006.

• Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations. New York: Basic Books, 2006.

• Walzer, Michael (2004), Arguing about War, London: Yale University Press.

• Brian Orend, The Morality of War. New York, Broadview Press, 2006.

•



Week III, November 5: Security or Liberty? The State v. the Individual

As the ancient world gave way to medieval times, so the latter period succumbed to power forces that inaugurated a new modern world, based on the rise of science, technology, secular reason, and capitalism. Early theorists such as Niccolo Machiavelli, John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau theorized the emergences of new kinds of state, authority, and power. By the nineteenth century, the capitalism world was incredibly dynamic and turbulent, as the forces of technology and markets led to huge struggles in modern societies, calling forth political traditions such as socialism and anarchism that demanded more radical forms of democracy and more inclusive forms of equality.

Lecture #3: From Authoritarianism to Anarchism: Classic Dilemmas and Antitheses of Social Philosophy

Reading

“Niccolò Machiavelli”



“Hobbes: Moral and Political Philosophy”



“Jean-Jacque Rousseau”



“Social Contract Theory”



Peter Kropotkin, “Anarchism”



Peter Kropotkin, “Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Ideal”



Michael Bakunin, God and the State



Emma Goldman, “The Individual, Society, and the State”



Emma Goldman, “Anarchism: What It Really Stands For”



(If later links don’t work, please search for the title on the main site link)

Discussion

➢ How does Hobbes’ notion of human nature as rooted in a “war of all against all” hold up, in your view, to human nature and interaction in various times or generally throughout history? Is his theory an accurate and factually based account or an early capitalist ideology that projects Hobbes’ own times and the competitive nature of capitalism throughout all of history?

➢ In what ways is Rousseau diametrically opposed to Hobbes? How accurate is his statement that “Man was born free, but everywhere is in chains? Were we really “born free? Have we ever been “free”? Is it accurate to describe “society” (a general term indeed) as nothing but a system of oppression?

➢ What strong parallels can be drawn between Hobbes’ emphasis on security as the most important principle of society and function of government, as established by a Leviathan with absolute power, and the emphases, values, and strong-armed appropriation of power (e.g., through a near total empowerment of the Executive Branch of government to the virtually unqualified weakening of the Congressional and Legislative Branches) by President George W. Bush in the immediate aftermath of 9/11?

➢ Rousseau is typically described as a champion of liberty, but many characterize him as “the first totalitarian theorist” of modernity? What problematic elements can one find in his book, The Social Contract, that could lead some to make this harsh judgment of Rousseau?

➢ How does reading actual anarchists' own words about the real meaning of anarchism compare to what you thought and were taught what anarchism is or means? Assuming there is a great discrepancy here, why do you think it exists? Assuming school systems, mainstream media, and the like so grossly misrepresent the actual nature of anarchism – as classic anarchists such as Kropotkin, Bakunin, and Goldman defined and meant it – why do you this gulf between the actual theory and its dominant social representations exists?

➢ What are the principle differences between anarchism and libertarianism, given that both attack the state as a repressive political apparatus and emphasize individual freedom against state power?

Review

❖ What was Machiavelli’s basic purpose in writing The Prince, and what was his principal argument? To what extent, frankly, can nearly all modern state political systems of any type – capitalist or socialist, parliamentary or representative “democracies” – be characterized as Machiavellian? What does “Machiavellian” mean, and how does it related to the notion of realpolitik? In what ways could one say that anarchists are exemplary in their attack on all versions of power politics and authoritarianism, and trying to break with dominator paradigms to create a truly free society?

❖ What is social contract theory? How do Hobbes and Rousseau represent two different versions of this? How do different assumptions about human nature lead Machiavelli and Hobbes, on one side, and Rousseau and anarchists, on the other side, to such sharply contrasting political theories?

❖ What are the ideals of anarchist thinkers and activists in the context of capitalist society? In what ways do prevalent conceptions of anarchism misrepresent the actual meaning of the term (according to classical theorists such as Kropotkin, Bakunin, and Goldman) and anarchists’ political intentions and goals? How do they attempt to solve/resolve the tension between what (state) societies and individuals? How can their vision of a society that not only contradicts individual liberty but fosters and nurtures it be compared to Athenian direct democracy at it best moments?

Further Research

• For an excellent documentary on the political background and Machiavellian intrigues underlying the high-culture veneer of the Renaissance, see the documentary series, Empires (specifically, “The Medici: Godfathers of the Renaissance” [for part one, see: ; or on Netflix instant downloadable (]).

• Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince (primary complete text)

•

• Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (primary complete text)

•

• Jean-Jacque Rousseau, The Social Contract (complete primary text)



• “Authority”



• “An Anarchist FAQ”



• The Anarchist Library”



Week IV, November 12: Liberalism, Rights, and Freedom of Speech

Capitalism created an era defined by a novel discourse of “the rights of man.” Above all, these were property rights and while such rights helped to undermine the feudal system, they underpinned the rise of a new social class – the bourgeoisie, or capitalists – and in the name of equality created just another system of social stratification. In addition to basic economic rights, however, capitalist societies created new political rights – most notably free speech rights, such as are enshrined in the US Constitution – which proved of enduring value to all citizens, however inadequately they often have been respected in capitalist societies and whatever the controversy surrounding them, their meaning, and scope of application.

Lecture #4: “Liberalism, Liberties, and the Fiction of `Free Speech’”

Reading

“Freedom of Speech”



“Pornography and Censorship”



“Mill's Moral and Political Philosophy”



“The First Amendment and You” (see uploaded document)

ADD: CURRENT CONTROVERSIES ABOUT WHITE SUPREMACIISTS AND TYPES LIKE MILO YIANNOPOOULOS SPEAKING ON CAMPUSES

Discussion

➢ Discuss John Stuart Mill’s political philosophy in terms of his commitment to free expression and opposition to censorship.

➢ Why is there such a discrepancy between the ideals and practice of the First Amendment? Is it an accident that there are a “few bad apples” in government, or is there rather a systemic denial of civil liberties to US citizens by concerted elites?

➢ What is your view on the “right” of the KKK to spread their “hate speech” through marches and speeches in predominantly Jewish and Black communities? In what case was this considered in the Supreme Court? If you sat on the bench of that court, what would be you ruling and why?

➢ What is your response to serious artistic work, such as the controversial ban of Mapplethorpe’s photography () as “obscene” and “pornography”? What is wrong with pornography, anyway, so long as no one is harmed (with the exceptions of child pornography and alleged “snuff” films), and men and women “performers” voluntarily choose to involve themselves in the industry? Whatever wrong or harm you might find with pornography, should it be banned? What authority does the state arrogate to itself that may or may not be legitimate? Is it legitimate? Why or why not?

➢ Is there a genuine “slippery slope” problem in censorship practices, such that once a state begins the process of censorship, it will invariably expend its scope to ban, censor, and condemn ever more forms of controversial writing, speaking, and artistic work?

➢ Choose one case from the “First Amendment and You” attached document, and critically analyze it for how or how not it was a fair court ruling that adheres or fails to adhere to the First Amendment.

➢ After consideration of the readings, lectures, and your own knowledge of history and contemporary society, especially in the post-9/11 era, carefully consider the argument that Naomi Wolf presents in this video, “The End of America” (), in which she compares the US to Germany, Russia, and other fascist-totalitarian societies; specifically she says there are ten classic criteria that define fascism, and she claims that the US meets these criteria. How close or far from the truth is she? Explain your reasoning.

➢ Discuss the free speech issues surround the current controversies surrounding right-wing and neo-Nazi figures such as Milos Yiannopoulos and Richard Spencer and their attempts to challenge progressive values on campuses such as Berkely and towns such as Charlottesville, Virginia.

Review

❖ What is “free speech”? What responsibilities come with this liberty, and what should be the legal limits to its exercise, if any?

❖ What are the central arguments made in Mill’s text, On Liberty?

❖ Provide a plausible definition of “pornography” and state arguments for or against pornography and calls to ban it.

❖ Why is the “greatest democracy in the world” so scarred by a long history of censorship and sate repression? What does this suggest about the “greatest democracy” claim?

Further Research

• Steve Best, “Banned in the UK! How the Home Office Protects the Public Good”



• Berkeley In the Sixties (video documentary on the origins of the modern free speech student movement in the 60s)



• John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (entire text)

•

Week V, November 19: Law, Ethics, and Civil Disobedience

In an ideal realm, substantive concepts of ethics – principle of right and wrong – will be institutionalized in law. Unfortunately, what is legal is not always ethical and what is ethical and just is not reflected in the law. When the law is oppressive and wrong, people will rebel against and forms of civil disobedience will arise, in order to create a more perfect harmony of ethics and law. Modernity is rich in principled forms of resistance of various types.

Lecture # 5: When the Legal is Not Ethical: Social Progress and the Need for Civil Disobedience

Reading

Pacifism”



“Civil Disobedience”



“Henry David Thoreau”



Henry David Thoreau, On Civil Disobedience [entire text]



“Mahatma Gandhi”



King: “Letter from Birmingham Jail”



Martin Luther King, "Why I Am Opposed to the War in Vietnam" (Video)



Malcolm X: “The Ballot or the Bullet”:

Denis Rancourt, “Roundabout as Conflict-avoidance versus Malcolm X’s Psychology of Liberation”



Discussion

➢ Explain the difference between law and ethics. Give some example of where civil disobedience is legitimate and might not be legitimate, giving reasons for your answers.

➢ Describe Thoreau’s concept of civil disobedience and how this 19th century figure was a key influence on later-day forms of civil disobedience.

➢ What does Gandhi’s philosophy of non-violence require of us -- in everyday life? For it is a way of life, not just a political tactic; what forms of violence can you identify in your life and are you inspired to try to eliminate them.

➢ Is life better today in India or the US after the “victories” of Gandhi and King? Why or why not?

➢ Watch these two clips of King and Malcolm X, and assess the fairness and validity of each argument. What final conclusions do you draw from these two contrasting viewpoints?

o Malcolm X Critiques Dr. Martin Luther King



o MLK Responds to Malcolm X’s Critique



➢ What is the critique of Denis Ranquort of Dr. King? How would you evaluate it?

➢ View this short documentary on the Gulabi Gang in India

➢ (), and critically compare their views and tactics with those advocated by Gandhi and King, on one hand, and Malcolm X on the other. Would the latter two denounce the Gulabi Gang as “violent” in some manner and counter to the viewpoint of Satyagraha? Could their tactics legitimately be viewed as “violent”? If so, would they be “wrong”? Or would they be more accurately and fairly framed as something else, such as self-defense? Do they stray from the original teachings Gandhi tried to set, or is pacifism a dogma that needs change in many ways and do they provide a better and more realistic strategy to combat oppression and violence? Conclude with your own general and critical assessment of the philosophy and tactics of the Gulabi Gang. Would you support or even join them (if you lived in India)? Why or why not?

Review

❖ What are the arguments for and against civil disobedience?

❖ What does Gandhi mean by “satyagraha”?

❖ How does King apply Gandhi’s concept to the US context?

❖ How do you explain the differences between King and Malcolm x?

Further Research

• “Civil Disobedience”



• Lawrence Rosenwald, “The Theory, Practice & Influence of Thoreau's Civil Disobedience”



• Wendy McElroy, “Henry Thoreau and 'Civil Disobedience'”



• King: “I Have a Dream” speech transcript:

• Bell Hooks, Legacy of MLK



• Peter Gelderloos, How Nonviolence Protects the State



• Derrick Jensen Pacify Resistance



• Peter Singer, Democracy and Disobedience, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973

• Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom: the Autobiography of Nelson Mandela, Toronto: Little, Brown and Company, 1974

• Cass Sunstein, Why Societies Need Dissent, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2003

• Herbert J. Storing, “The Case Against Civil Disobedience,” in Civil Disobedience in Focus, Hugo A. Bedau (ed.), London: Routledge. 1991

• Howard Zinn, Disobedience and Democracy: Nine Fallacies on Law and Order. New York: Random House. 1968

Week VI, November 26: Capitalism, Democracy, and Justice

In the 18th century, modern capitalism emerged as a system promoting rights and democracy, but in a very imperfect form. The radical gulf between the ideal and practice of capitalist democracies inspired radical critiques and counter-visions (such as we such in the anarchist and civil disobedience traditions) and alternative and richer notions of democracy, whether from Marx or liberals like John Dewey and John Rawls.

Lecture # 6: Competing Visions of Justice and Democracy

Reading (and Viewing)

“Justice”



Milton Friedman, “Defending Capitalism” (video)



“Capitalism vs. Socialism”



George Carlin, “The Real Owners of the World” (video)



“Karl Marx”



Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto (entire text, focus on parts 1&2)



Robert Jensen, “Anti-Capitalism in Five Minutes or Less”



The Widening Income Gap





“John Dewey”



“Dewey’s Political Philosophy”



Discussion

➢ Provide a definition of justice which includes different kinds of justice, such as “distributive justice.” Which type of society do you think potentially (not as is, but in its potential, and understanding no real “socialist” societies now exist or ever did than conformed to Marxist or anarchist visions of true equality) can better fulfill the demands of distributive justice: capitalism or socialism? Why?

➢ What are the major criticisms Marx has of capitalism society, and how does he propose to overcome them through a “workers revolution”? What new type of democracy and system of justice does he have in mind? Note that in terms, of justice, one of the clearest indictors he provided was a society organized around the idea of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his ability” (see: ). What does this phrase mean, and how, if at all, does it provide the potential for a society which, unlike capitalism, so few have so much and so many have so little?

➢ What in your view are the major strengths and weaknesses of capitalism and socialism as models for society? How could some of the most glaring flaws of each system be overcome? Would the best social system perhaps be a hybrid system of both? Provide a few examples of how this model would different from societies humans have created so far and why it might be better than anything yet achieved, if you think that is a viable concept and experiment. Explain your reasoning.

➢ John Dewey was not a Marxist or revolution, but a reformer. He could acknowledge the vast problems of capitalist domination, worker exploitation, and inequality of wealth that Marx argued capitalism is designed to produce, but he was a reformer who justice could be obtained without revolution. Moreover, living beyond Marx’s time by many decades, he saw the further decay of democracy in capitalism society and the problem of hyper-individualism which nullified community, solidarity, and a sense of a common good. In addition, he observed the decline of citizenship and the role mass media played in this process. Describe Dewey’s picture of capitalism in the 20th century, what he added to Marx’s critique, and the relevance (if you so believe) of his critical vision and proposals for a more just society, better community, and more functional democracy with revitalized citizenship.

➢ Why should we be fair or just? If, as people say, “life is not fair,” why should society be fair? If there is no justice in the natural world, why should it prevail in the social world? Why not just the war of all against all? Philosopher John Rawls says, in Aristotelian language, that “justice if the first virtue of social institutions.” Ponder this. How does help us transcend the fallacy if “Might is Right” such that justice produces the best possible arrangement for human beings to “flourish”?

➢ There is a lot of compelling date on the corporate control of wealth and political power in the US and other countries, but in this video clip, “The Real Owners of the World” ( ), George Carlin puts it in his own inimitable way. Does he make valid and incisive points? Which and why?

➢ Can you provide the most updated and reliable statistics on the income gap between the rich and poor in the US, and globally? Is the situation getting better or worse, and why?

Review

❖ Provide a general definition of justice capable of addressing the different aspects of justice.

❖ Describe capitalism and state its main advantages and disadvantages. Do the same for socialism.

❖ Described the nuanced view of capitalism that Marx and Engels provide in The Communist Manifesto. State what they take to the positive and negative features of capitalism. Why do they think these positive aspects cannot be redeemed and advanced except in a socialist or communist society? What does Dewey think they can?

❖ How is Dewey’s critical analysis of capitalism both similar to and different from Marx’s? What forces in society undermine democracy and citizenship that emerged in the 20th century did Marx did not have to engage?

❖ Describe the dramatic differences in earning between the rich and poor in US capitalism and a problem f distributive justice. How did such a gap come about and continue to grow? Why has nothing been done about it whether by Bush or Obama? What are some measures you can think about to at least alleviate this problem and bring about more “economic justice” in capitalist society (whether or not true justice is ultimately possible in capitalism)?

Further Research

• “Justice, with Michael Sandel” (video and text)



“Explorations in Social Inequality: (rich resource guide)



• “Income Gap Widens: Census Finds Record Gap Between Rich And Poor”



• The Corporation (online documentary)



• Michael Moore, Capitalism: A Love Story \

(online film)

Week VII, December 3: The Critique of Civilization

The debate between capitalism and socialism, left and right, is eclipsed by an even more radical critique – that of civilization itself, especially including modern industrial societies of any kind. “Civilization” began emerging at different parts of the world at different times and paces about 10,000 years ago, replacing the primordial lifeways of hunting and gathering societies. This new social form was based upon rapid change, growth, and expansion on all levels, and created hierarchical societies. Radical critics of this recent social form – “primitivists” and others -- see civilization as barbarism and progress as regress.

Lecture # 7: Total Liberation and Moral Progress: The Struggle for Human Evolution

Reading

“What is Civilization?”



“Nietzsche, Freud and the Thrust Toward Modernism”



‘The Revolt Against the Western Intellectual Tradition:

Friedrich Nietzsche and the Birth of Modernism”



“Civilization and its Discontents”



“Freud, Civilization and its Discontents, 1930 (excerpt)”



“Civilization and its Discontents” (excerpt)



Jared Diamond, “The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race”



Richard Heinberg, “The Primitivist Critique of Civilization”



John Moore, “A Primitivist Primer”:



John Zerzan, “Future Primitive”



“Gross National Happiness,” Clamor Magazine, Issue 35.5, January/February 2006



Discussion

➢ What is the standard, mainstream, textbook, Eurocentric definition of “civilization”? How does the meaning of this term typically depend on its opposition to earlier conditions of “savagery” and “barbarism”?

➢ What is the critical definition provided by figures such as Rousseau, Nietzsche, Freud, and primitivists? What solutions, if any, do primitivists such as Jensen or Zerzan provide to the decaying empire of “civilization”? Provide a critical response of their highly critical analysis of civilization (do you fundamentally agree or disagree, and why?) and of their alternative vision for how humans ought to exist (would this actually be a better state of affairs that contemporary life? Why or why not?)

➢ What similarities can you find between Nietzsche and Freud’s critique of civilization? Who do they or the primitivists disagree with Marx? In what ways does Marx buy into and advance, rather than critical deconstruct, the narrative of social progress through the development of science, technology, and command over nature?

➢ If modern capitalist societies are the best societies in history, how do you explain all the serious problems people suffer – from stress and drug addiction to high rates of depression, exhaustion, and suicide – such as discussed in the Clamor Magazine article, “Gross National Happiness”?

➢ For a compelling documentary treatment of the primitivist critique of civilization, view the film, “EndCiv,” by Derrick Jensen (see: ). Discuss your honest reaction to this film and state whether or not you think his concerns are valid. Do you believe that the ten thousand year reign of civilization has for the most part been a disaster and long sequence of dominator cultures at war with one another, with other species, and with the earth itself? Do you believe industrial capitalism is sustainable beyond another 50-100 years, noting, for instance, that many experts claim we are at or past the stage of “peak oil,” that resource wars over water and oil already have broken out all over the world, and that climate change is already wreaking havoc with this planet, such that the future is guaranteed to be a grim war of all against all amidst the backdrop of dead oceans, cleared rainforests, mass species extinction, and global social and ecological crisis as a whole? Or do you think these critics are exaggerating the problems and that science, technology, and markets will sustain the dream of progress forever?

Review

❖ Define what civilization is according to both mainstream and critical interpretations. When did it begin, how did it develop, at what point is it at now, and what future does it have?

❖ How does Marx fit into the modern and Enlightenment models of progress? In what fundamental ways do critics like Diamond, Nietzsche, Freud, primitivists, and Gandhi for that matter reject this model. What are some of the varied alternative proposals to civilization?

❖ What standard economic models are used to measure progress and what are the major flaws in these models? What kind of alternative models are needed to truly assess whether modernity is indeed a “better” way of life that a simpler past?

Further Research

• Jean-Jacques Rousseau, A Discourse Upon the Origin and the Foundation of the Inequality Among Mankind (primary complete text)



• Freud, Civilization and its Discontents (full text)



• “Survival: The Movement for Tribal Peoples: Progress Can Kill”



• “Beyond GDP (Gross Development Product): Measuring Progress, True Wealth, and the Well-Being of Nations” (review main ideas and watch the video trailer)



• “This Is Civilization” ” (mainstream history documentary)



• “What a Way To Go: Life at the End of Empire” (critical analysis documentary)



Your final exams ARE DUE TO ME BY MIDNIGHT, Friday December 14; please send them to me at: best@utep.edu. Do not send them to me via Blackboard email. Keep a copy of your exam should there be a problem. The deadline for dropping the course is November 2.[pic]

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download