美国乔治城大学国际课程研修报告--钱墨馨--2018.07

B． Elements of Political Theory

1.Introduction to the course Professor: Prof Joseph. E. Hartman

This class is aimed to introduce students to the field of political theory. Rather than attempting a broad survey of roughly 2500 years of the history of political thought, this course will engage in a close reading of six authors, each of whom writes in six different modes and each of whom can be thought of as posing a particular intractable question of that time. This course is taught in a form of reading forum, students read the books recommended by the professor after classes and discuss their opinions or exchange ideas in class while professor give his viewpoints and answer students’ questions.

2.Reading materials

Plato, The Republic, Sterling and Scott trans, New York: W.W Norton&Co,1985

Augustine, City of God, Bettenson trans, New York: Penguin Books, 1984 Hobbes, Leviathan, Curly ed. Indianapolis, Hackett Publishing Co, 1994

Rousseau, The Major Political Writings, John Scott trans, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012

Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Mayer ed, New York: Harper & Row, 1969

Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals, Kaufman trans, New York: Vintage, 1967

Outline for the course               photo with professor and classmates

Reading materials of the course

As the fundamental factor of the ideal city, Socrates, or we can say that Plato himself argues that justice commands a man to have and to hold only what is his own. Tending to his own business which was chose for him from his birth and not meddling in others are the keys of justice. This argument counts human beings as characters in a drama play, everyone has different and unequal nature which decides his future role in the city. Socrates demonstrated that this hierarchical view of human nature is significant to reach an ideal just city, however, from my perspective, the argument is not so persuasive both from anthropological and political aspects for the reasons of the equality of human nature, the meaning of education and the function of the society though there is validity in terms of political responsibility.

First, historical background always has impacts on philosophers’ arguments. The dialogues may have taken place during the Peloponnesian War. After Greece lost the war, the city declined from its prosperity. The death of Plato’s teacher compelled Plato to leave Greece and travelled outside. His experience made him be skeptical about the democratic system in Greece and seek for ideal justice. He believed that private prosperity and interfering in others jobs are detrimental to the city, that was why he came up with the ‘mind your business’ justice.

This opinion seems troubling, or even ridiculous in nowadays. The equality of human nature is the basic common concept in the society. Former US president John Quincy Adams said that ‘democracy, pure democracy, has at least its foundation in a generous theory of human rights. It is founded on the natural equality of mankind. It is the element of all lawful government upon earth.’  Aristocracy which was considered as the best regime to Plato had been proved to be out-date by Glorious Revolution, the French Revolution, the independence of USA and other historical events.

‘Nature hath made men so equal in the faculties of body and mind as that, though there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body or of quicker mind than another.’ We admit that human beings have inherent difference. Some may be more rational while some may be emotional. Some may be stronger physically while some mentally. But these distinctions cannot determine what you are throughout your life. For example, although a person is very tough, he is not born to become a carrier. From the aspects of biology and genetics, inborn difference was decided by genes, but genes can never decide what people do in the future.

Secondly, to say the least, one’s strength doesn’t equal to one’s must. A person who is good at writing can choose to become a writer or an actor, even a teacher if he wants. It is humans’ freedom to choose what he or she wants to do. According to Daniel J. Boorstin, freedom means the opportunity to be what we never thought we would be. Designated hierarchical human nature deprives of people’s freedom and right to choose and change. In Leviathan, Hobbes also pointed out that ‘the right of nature, is the liberty each man hath to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own nature, own life, and consequently of doing anything which, in his own judgement and reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto.’ No matter the action is either commanded or forbidden by God, it is the right and freedom of people to choose his or her role in the city rather than yielded to one’s inborn human nature.

Another reason why I think the argument was troubling is that Socrates didn’t provide concrete and persuasive ways to identify particular human nature. To Socrates, this hierarchical nature was divined by God. It sounds like that when a baby was born, God came and told him: ‘child, you should be a carpenter in the future, mind your business and never do other things.’ That sounds too dramatic nowadays, doesn’t it? For instance, the great president Abraham Lincoln was born in a one-room log cabin on the Sinking Spring Farm. He almost tried everything in farm including chopping wood, carrying water, farming and hunting. But afterwards, he became a lawyer, a M.H.R and then the 16th president of US by self-education. I believe there was no God telling him that he would be a president or still a farmer like his former generations when he was born. Without trying, experiencing, involving, no one knows what suits him most. Without trying, a carpenter will never know that he may become a leader or writer or anything else.

Third, I think it relates to the concept of education. In The Republic, education functions as an approach to educate citizens to be just and help the guardians to lead the city in justice. In modern view, education is not a tool for development-individual, community and the nation. It is the foundation for our future. It is empowerment to make choices and emboldens the youth to chase their dreams. (by Nita Ambani) and the architecture of the soul. (by William Bennett) If education in The Republic is the way to teach people behave under their hierarchical human nature, then the modern education is devoted to inspire people to break what hierarchical human nature pressed on them.

In addition of anthropological reasons, there are also political implications that reject Socrates’ understanding of his justice. In order to ensure the city function orderly, every citizen should only tend to their own business. Take an analogy, citizens are like different components of a large machine. Each part is useful only when it sticks to where it ought to be and never cross the boundary between another part. Citizens are components, city is the machine. To guarantee the machine works well, citizens should sacrifice some rights and freedom and focus on their own position. But human beings are not tools nor components. Philosopher Immanuel Kant always recognize that human individuals are ends and do not use them as means to your end. Some critics may compare the city in Republic with communist society. The collective is higher than the individual. However, Marxism emphasizes on the equality of human and the importance of individual. That’s why I believe, to a certain degree, Plato’s idea of city and classes have impact on latter Marxism, but Marxism didn’t take the original understanding of justice. Classes exists, but they are not based on unequal human nature.

It reminds me of the call for American Dream. It is rooted in the Declaration of Independence, which proclaimed that ‘all men are created equal’ and has the right to ‘life, liberty and pursuit of happiness’. American Dream encourages people to achieve success, and prosperity through hard work, determination and initiative. If justice is ‘mind your own business’ on the basis of hierarchical human nature, then American Dream is meaningless because everyone has his or her established path and life from the birth to death.

However, Socrates’ understanding of justice was not completely wrong or absurd. From the perspective of politics, justice which commands people perform his or her own role properly is reasonable to some extent. We deny the hierarchical view of human nature, but we admit that there existing different position, different classes in the society. We refer it as social responsibility. Socrates was right when he mentioned the chaos resulted from meddling in others’ business. When craftsmen, soldiers, guardians mixed their own business, the society will be unjust. Similarly, for example, when administration, legislation, judicature mixed their business, the political system will be trapped into a mess.

To conclude, Socrates’ hierarchical view of human nature in The Republic contradicted to the equality of human nature, considering the blurred way to identify one’s nature and human freedom, I don’t think that human beings are born to be carpenters, soldiers or guardians as Socrates argued. Justice is not based on unequal human nature. However, the norm that each person of the society performs his or her own role and takes social responsibility is still adoptable in nowadays society. Bibliography:

Reference：  

[1]Plato. The Republic[M]. Translated by Richard W. Sterling & William C. Scott. W.W.NOETON&COMPANY. Printed in United States of America. Book IV

[2]Thomas Hobbes. Leviathan[M]. Selected variants from the Latin edition of 1668, Edited, with Introduction and Notes by Edwin Curley. 1994 by Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. Part I

[3]Wilson, Clyde N. Twentieth-Century American Historians (Gale:1983. Dictionary of Literary Biography. Volume 17)

[4]Wood, Allen. Kant’s Ethical Thoughts. Cambridge University. 1999

B. Leviathan and Liberalism

——Comments on Leviathan (Hobbes)

Traditionally, Thomas Hobbes was considered as the pioneer of classical realism. His emphasis on securing the authority of sovereign over subjects has led critics to describe him as a supporter of absolutism. Meanwhile, the clear authoritarian character of Leviathan made him stand on the opposite side of liberalism. Although I do not believe Hobbes was the father of liberalism, the logical foundation of Leviathan was rooted in liberal or proto-liberal for his emphasis on individual freedom, human liberty and the peaceful goal of the state as its function. Probably, due to the political environment of that time, Hobbes’ Leviathan should not be classified as liberal or anti-liberal simply.

First, I want to expound my view on supporting traditional belief on the authoritarian character of Leviathan. Hobbes believes that the worst condition of human is the state of nature where invokes ‘the war of all against all’. Thus, in order to gain security, the primary need of human being, sovereign is necessary. To Hobbes, this sovereign is the chain which constrain human beings’ freedom. Or to be more precise, that means people give up some part of their natural liberty to the sovereign and gain no more freedom to exchange a kind of security within the state.

Hume claimed that ‘Hobbes’s politics are fitted only to promote tyranny.Also, Sheldon Wolin called Hobbes not only an apologist for despotism, but also a prime contributor to a distinctly modern ‘culture of despotism’. About civil law, Hobbes claimed that ‘the sovereign of a commonwealth, be it an assembly or one man, is not subject to the civil laws’ which means that civil law is the tool to constrain people in the commonwealth but useless towards the man leading the commonwealth. Sounds like the characteristic of autarchy or despotism.

Another reason why I think Hobbes does not belong to liberal is from the perspective of International Relations. In International Relations theory, Hobbes is the representative of classical realism. In realism, human nature is egoism and the conflicts among states are resulted from natural evil of human beings. In Leviathan, the desire for power leads quickly to a desire for power over others. Hobbes’s spirit seems like Machiavelli, a pioneer of classical realism, before him: to act wisely in our dealings with others, we must not entertain any illusions about human goodness. In Hobbes it often takes the form of an extreme egoism. This assumption of human nature is contradictive to that of liberalism. Liberals believes the existence of norms and morality of human beings. On the states level, countries can cooperate and coexist harmoniously in liberalism but in realism, anarchy triggers endless conflicts among states. In Leviathan, the environment is the wild jungle, self-help is the only way for states to gain security because of the desire of power deepen in human nature.

Admittedly, Hobbes’s status as a liberal thinker has long been controversial. Hobbes began from some distinctly liberal premises, but the conclusion he draws seems to be hostile to liberal principles. Some scholars defend Hobbes as a liberal intended to neglect toleration as the basic character of liberalism.

First, Hobbes’s logic began from the absolute liberty of human. Susan Moller Okin says: ‘Though Hobbes was no liberal in his conclusion, advocating an absolute rather than restrained state, many of his most important ideas——including original individual equality and freedom ——became central tenets of liberal theory. What is liberty? From ancient Greece, people have been seeking for the true meaning of freedom and liberty. Hobbes based his argument of civil right, desire of security and the establishment of sovereign on the foundation of individual liberty——distinctly absolute liberty. Because of the absolute liberty, human beings can do everything he wants even have the right over others’ bodies and that is why the ‘war of all against all’ exists. The fear of death led humans to seek for security within sovereign. Thus, Hobbes believe that the covenant under the fear of death in natural state is promissory.

Then, we should pay attention to the goal of political society. Benjamin Barber said that ‘Liberals rightly pall at the idea of Hobbes as a liberal predecessor because his fear of anarchy leads him to embrace an authoritarian conception of the state incompatible with limited government. Yet inasmuch as the state serves a liberty the natural condition imperils, Hobbes does share a crucial liberal premise: that the legitimating political principle is the service of individual self-preservation, which is the sine qua non of liberty. In Leviathan, the establishment of the state is based on the covenant between people and sovereignty which means everyone in the state agrees to subject to its authority. The state itself is not the goal, the goal is to seek security and protect civilians from state of nature by establishing a sovereign.

State is more like a tool which is used to protect people’s rights and security. This is close to the essence of Western Liberalism. Sovereign has to protect its civilians from outside invasion or domestic conflicts, meanwhile, sovereign should not violate civilians’ rights. The relation between civilians and sovereign is mutual trusting. Citizens obey to the covenant with sovereign and give up part of their rights to gain security from sovereign’s protection. On the contrary, if the sovereign cannot carry on its responsibility to its citizens, the citizens can withdraw their obligations towards the sovereign or even oust the regime.

In addition, the authority of sovereign protects citizens’ liberty and rights. For example, western liberalists emphases on private right of property. To Hobbes, protecting the private right of property is the action of sovereignty, mainly in the form of law. None can make the laws but the commonwealth, because people’s subjection is to the commonwealth only. In the contrast, where there is no state, or commonwealth, there will be endless war of all against all, people own everything from use of force. This is not private ownership nor public ownership, but chaotic situation.

From the perspective of laws, I think the consciousness of the rule of law in Leviathan is close to the modern view of state in liberalism. Hobbes divided law into two parts, one is natural law, the other is civil law. Law is the most powerful tool to protect citizens’ rights and security. Although, law constrains part of citizens’ liberty or freedom, but it protects people from the chaos. As Hobbes said, ‘law was brought into the world for nothing else but to limit the natural liberty of men, in such manner as they might not hurt, but assist one another, and join together against a common enemy. So the most important work of the sovereign power is to legislate proper law to guide the commonwealth. To point out, in Leviathan, the order is kept by the law agreed by the whole citizens, thus it is different from fascism, communism, radical Islam which opposed to the fundamental principle of liberalism.

However, scholars have controversy over Hobbes status in liberalism is reasonable. I think this controversy was mainly on the paradox of ‘power’ and ‘right’ in Leviathan. For example, the law he believe: quod tibi fieri non vis, alteri ne feveris. (do not do to other what you do not want done to yourself), if popularized to everyone, will come to the paradox that one must do to others what you want done to yourself. Thus, some scholar argued that the paradox in Leviathan also reflects the inner paradox of liberalism itself.

In conclusion, Hobbes should not be classified as a liberal or anti-liberal simply by the theories and argument in Leviathan. The authoritarian character of Leviathan and Hobbes’ argument about human nature are hostile to liberal principle. But the root of his logic is from individual liberty. The background of this book is to provide a possible political policy for Britain government during its civil war. When we judge a author’s philosophy and theory, milieu factors should be taken into consideration.

C．Comparative Political Theories

——comments on the comparison of Western and Eastern political theories

Philosophy is the symbol of wisdom. Both the West and the East have wisdom. Before the geographical discovery era, the West and the East were separated. However, thousands years ago, on Crete and along the Yellow River basin, different kinds of philosophy emerged. When states arose, philosophy was applied into politics and produced political philosophy as a special philosophical field. Due to the diverse history, culture and regime, Western political theories and Eastern political theories are totally different. Making comparison between these two political theory systems, we can find the difference and similarity to better understand the political theories and dig out universality of human nature. Thus, we can view the contemporary political regimes in a broader sense and seek for the common future for the whole world.

【The Origins】

  First, we should look back to the origins and the development of these political theory systems. From Plato to Hobbes and then, Tocqueville, the philosophers created an ideal state in his work. In The Republic, Plato expressed his understanding of justice in the city. He started from elements of human soul——reason, spirit and appetite. He based different kind of regimes on different parts of soul, Aristocracy on reason, Timocracy on spirit, Democracy on pleasure and Tyranny on power. After losing Peloponnesian War, Greece declined from its prosperity. Plato began skeptical of the democratic system and he believed that private prosperity and interfering in others jobs were detrimental to the city, so justice, he argues, commands a man to have and to hold only what is his own.

Then, Hobbes gave political theory philosophical and theoretical framework. He created Leviathan as the commonwealth or sovereign to protect citizens from the state of nature. Citizens have to give up part of their freedom in order to exchange for security under the sovereign. Hobbes started from human nature and the worst situation——state of nature which means danger and chaos. The covenant between individuals and the sovereign was considered as the beginning of Western contract spirit. Afterwards, western political relations is more like a kind of covenant relation.

Western political theories are mostly based on scientific rationality and the theme is talking about the state, or commonwealth, sovereign, in other words. They worked for seeking a proper way to establish a sovereign in the state of nature and gain security. We can conclude that Western political philosophy started from the separation of nation and religion. With the security of the nation as the goal, it analyzes the structure of the nation, the source of political power, the institution of power operation and supervision to reach a systematic political theory.

Chinese political theories can be traced back to the Spring and Autumn period and the Warring States era. Ancient China did have a pure power doctrine in the school known as Legalism, elaborated by the philosopher Han Feizi and ruthlessly implemented in the state of Qin that would ultimately unify China. Han Feizi emphasized the importance of law in the regime. Different from the nationalism of Western philosophy. The philosophy of Han Feizi is more like the expression of utilitarian, he believed that politics should be separated from morality because of the tendency of drawing on the benefits and avoiding risks in human nature. Based on the knowledge of selfishness of humanity, Han Fei plans and contrives the power restrain methods for monarch. These thoughts directly influence the formation of the 

mechanism of the power restrain in ancient China government.

Ancient China has experienced more than two thousand years of feudal society. Imperial power was always the supremest. Besides, Confucius’s Confucian school has been in a dominant position since the Han Dynasty. Political theories afterwards were related with the morality of Confucian school tightly.

We can conclude that to establish a political system with rational thinking is the common point of political philosophy, but the difference from Western modern political philosophy is that the ideological structure of Confucian political philosophy is: benevolence, righteousness and ritual.

【Difference and Similarity】

From the origins, we know that Chinese political theories originated in turbulent days. The goal is to save the people, sum up historical experience and combine it with reality to propose a governing strategy and form an ideology mainly to govern the society. While western political theories pay more attention to cosmopolitan and scientific sense.

Scientific rationality and contract spirit play key roles in Western philosophy. In modern western philosophy, human beings are born to be equal and free. Liberty is what most people called for in Western societies. For example, in The Republic, Plato wrote that a city need few guardians to lead the city, citizens have their freedom in political system in order to avoid tyranny. Also, in Leviathan, sovereign is the tool created to protect citizens from outside danger, citizens give up part of their freedom to the sovereign and obey the common law or rules in the commonwealth. However, the sovereign should not violate citizens’ rights and other freedom, otherwise, the citizens can withdraw their obligations towards the sovereign or even oust the regime.

Eastern political theories were influenced by monarchical regime. They seek the proper strategy to maintain the supremacy of imperial power. The political system was restrained by morality, or benevolent in Confucian. First, Chinese political theories emphasize the necessity to rectify names, the legitimacy of regime. Second, emperor was in the highest position. People should be completely loyal to their emperor rather than the country, meanwhile, power, sovereign are on the same person——the emperor. The laws and rules cannot restrain the emperor. Third, in ancient Chinese political system, rule by virtue is more important and powerful than rule by law. It was hard to separate politics and traditional Confucian philosophy.

Despite the differences, Western and Eastern political theories share many similarities. First, they all based their analysis on the study of human nature. Hobbes’s negative view on human nature which triggers chaos and conflicts in the state of nature and the Liberalists’ view on the virtue and morality rooted from human nature. In ancient China, there was also a debate about the nature of good or evil within people: Mencius’s theory of good nature VS Xun Zi’s theory of evil nature. Political theory seek for the best way to gain security of people, it is common to start from the source of regime——human nature.

Second, in order to supervise power to avoid overpower, both western and eastern political theories think about the institution of power supervising and restraining. In Democracy of America, the separation of three powers—executive, legislative and judicial power. In ancient China, the mutual restraint between monarchical power and prime minister’s power, central and local power. As it is the human nature to seek more and more power, both western and eastern political philosophers know the danger of overpower.

In addition, some specific western political theory can find its resonance in eastern theory. For instance, the philosopher-king, or philosopher-ruler, is one of the core element of the Republic political state. Plato believed that the philosopher loves all wisdom and not just fragments of it, so that political power and philosophic intelligence converge, only then will the theory of the state spring to life and see the light of day. Similarly, the idea of inner sage and outer king is a core concept of the Confucian political theory. It is a kind of ideal personality and politics. It represents the unique moral idealism of Confucianism - the spirit of the sage-king or sage-ruler. The idea is that the most crucial thing in human society is political leadership. When political leaders are completely handed over to a sage, the society will be peaceful.

【Current Political System】

As the practice of political theories, we should also study western and eastern political systems. In Democracy of America, Tocqueville introduced the democratic political system in America and its origin and development. United States and China, these two most important countries in the world implement two quite different political systems.

US political system started from Puritan. Decentralization is the core of power distribution. President, Congress and Supreme court respectively represent executive power, legislative power and judicial power. The separation of these three powers restrain and supervise each other to make sure the system function well. While in China, National People’s Congress is the highest state authority and supervise all the other government departments.

Political Party is the production of modern politics. Most western countries are two-party system or multi-party system. China is a one-party country. Compared with democratic system in western countries, China is regarded as the state of Party. Party and government have not been separated for a long time.

Democracy is regarded as the best political regime in the world by many western countries nowadays. But democracy can be considered in a broader sense and narrow sense. Democracy in the broader sense includes the republic while the narrow sense dose not. The principle of republic is minority obeying majority to avoid tyranny and conflicts. In ancient times, there were two forms of republic. One is the democratic republicanism in Athens Greece. The other is aristocratic republican system in the ancient Roman Republic. People’s Republic of China inherited the spirit of republicanism of ancient western history to some extent and also adopt socialism experience from Soviet Union. Thus, political systems cannot be separated from each other and be the opposite side with each other.

【The Future】

From the broader sense, the development of western political theory grew from nationalism to cosmopolitism and eastern political theory developed from ‘Great Unity’ to nationalism since the late Warring States era. After studying the western political theories and compared them with eastern theories, we should seek the future of political theories.

First, the future of political theories should adheres to the scientific rationality. It is the requirement of the public nature of political theories. Political power is the public power of all people and should be understood and obeyed rationally by the public. Political system is the result of rational design and continuous practice. It reflects the efficiency of the political theory. The stability of political system should be based on the rational consensus of politics. Without rationality, political theories will all be useless illusion.

Second, in the future, political philosophy should include all political practice during human history. The problem of political theory always show itself in the practice. For example, in Democracy of America, the political system of America was not established and settled in one day only by theories. After many times practicing and correcting, the political system of nowadays America was finally formed. The theory needs history as the mirror, meanwhile, the conclusion needs to be tested in the practice. Political theory is the most historic and that is why scholars nowadays also should study theories from ancient times although they may seems to be outdate in modern society. It is not accidental that both Eastern and Western philosophers pay attention to the analysis of historical experience. Only when we compare ancient and modern, eastern and western political theories with each other, can we reach more comprehensive understanding.

Third, the future political theory should further clarify the scientific nature of itself. Different from Mathematics, Physics, as a subject, political philosophy regards human political practice as the specific research object, taking human political experience as the starting point and the research results also point to the actual political practice and need to be tested in political practice. The scientific nature of political philosophy is first given by the group characteristics of human beings. It is also the reason why political philosophers often examine human nature first as I mentioned in the part of ‘difference and similarity’ in this paper.

Last but not least, I think in the future, political theories should be more cosmopolitan and aim at realizing global peace and stability. Trying to define the political theories under the state has theoretical limitation. And we can see from the history that nationalism was the source of many international conflicts. Mencius of Ancient China once put it that The road to the avenue is also the world. Thus, political theories not only aim to find a proper way to govern a country but also to create a harmonious world community.

III． Learning experience and introspection

The academic atmosphere in Georgetown University really impressed me. As a student from the class of International Organization of Honors College in SISU, I am fond of politics and International Relations. Besides, Georgetown University is famous for its Government department in US and all over the world. That’s why I chose two courses from Government department to study in summer session.

Studying in an American class is totally different from studying in Chinese class. These two styles of studying and teaching have their own features. Class in America is much more diverse, students come from different countries, with different cultural backgrounds. Especially in summer session, students come from all over the world gather together in one classroom and exchange their ideas. That’s awesome and one can always know about viewpoints from another perspective. For example, in my International Relations class, we have students from USA, China, Spain, Cuba, France, Venezuela, etc. When talking about global issues, we can hear different opinions both from developed countries and developing countries. Also, from this class, I can feel that the global status of China is rising nowadays. Because when it came to some important issues like global warming, trade war, the professor always asked Chinese students to answer. He said that nowadays international society should listen carefully to China’s voice.

The class of Elements of Political Theory is quite dynamic and active. Students in this class talked freely about their opinions on the essays. They even dare to doubt the credibility of some of the points in these classic books and offered their own understanding towards certain issues. Compared to it, the class environment in China is a kind of silent, many students dare not to speak out their unique or critic opinion in front of a large number of people. Although I took active part in the discussion in Georgetown University class, I am also one of the silent members in Chinese classes. Most of the time, when others are silent I choose to keep silent as well rather than become distinctive because I feel awkward sometimes if others are silent when you are talking actively. I think this is what I need to change when I back to Chinese classes and be brave to show my opinions.

In addition, after this summers session, I found that I still need improvement in my English study. We still have a distance to the level of a native speaker. I really appreciate this opportunity for us to experience American campus life.