Political Essay

POSC 7: Introduction to Political Theory Second Essay Assignment

The ability to analyze and interpret texts is an essential skill in the study of political theory. The purpose of this assignment is to give you an opportunity to develop that skill by preparing a short, carefully-crafted essay on the contrasts between ancient and modern thinkers. These papers are to be exegetical or interpretive, which means that the task is not to evaluate the validity of what the authors are saying, but rather to explain what they are saying—and why—in the passages under discussion. In so doing, you will be defending a certain interpretation of the texts at hand.

This is not meant to be a research paper. You should not consult or cite any sources other than the texts you have been asked to read in this class. Using any language from the internet will be considered a violation of academic integrity, and will be grounds for a failing grade.

In constructing your argument, you should restrict yourself to examining the relevant portions of the texts, and clearly pointing to those passages that support your particular reading of the text. In addition, you are called upon to some extent to synthesize the various views under consideration, by contrasting the approaches of the two authors.

Answer the following question in an essay of approximately 1250 words:

What distinguishes the political thought of modern thinkers like Machiavelli, Hobbes and Locke from that of ancients? Choose two out of these three modern thinkers and contrast their political thinking to that of the ancient thinkers (in other words, contrast the ancient thinkers to either Machiavelli and Hobbes, or Hobbes and Locke, or Machiavelli and Locke—the choice is yours). In answering this question, make sure you address how the modern thinkers thought of the central task or purpose of politics, and how their view of politics stood in contrast to the ancient view.

Some secondary questions and pre-writing ideas to focus on in your paper:  You do not need to spend any time treating the ideas of Plato or Aristotle at length, simply address

what aspects of the modern thinkers’ views stand in contrast to Plato and Aristotle’s views, and, in each case, how.

 Make sure you include each modern thinker’s views on human nature, and on the relationship of politics to morality or virtue.

 Your answer should also highlight some of the differences among the modern thinkers’ views, even while demonstrating their similarities in contrast to the ancients. That is, you should also be careful not to mistakenly argue that all the modern thinkers have an identical view of politics. Rather, make sure to point

out important differences between them, and say why their views can be seen as “modern” despite these differences.

 Some examples: for instance, you may want to distinguish between Machiavelli’s understanding of politics, and that of Hobbes or Locke. In some ways, all their understandings of politics are “modern,” but in what way do their views politics differ crucially from one another?

 Relatedly, how do the modern thinkers understand human nature in contrast to the ancients? (Hint: Locke is the odd one out here).

 And, all the modern thinkers obviously have very different prescriptions for the best form of government: what accounts for these differences? (Hint: Machiavelli’s idea of “statecraft” vs. the two different versions of the “social contract” we see in Locke and in Hobbes).

Please note that your essay should not resemble a “laundry-list” of items that simply summarizes all of the ideas above. Rather, the first part of the question (in bold type) is meant to be the central and primary question to be addressed. The rest of the prompt gives you secondary questions, all of which are designed to aid you in making secondary arguments. In a paper that flows well, the secondary arguments will coherently come together to support the central argument of the paper, in response to the central question. In other words, a good answer to the primary question depends not only on constructing good arguments in response to the secondary questions, it requires understanding the correct relationship of all the secondary arguments to one another, and to the primary question. Note, therefore, that you do not need to address the secondary arguments in the order that they appear in the prompt above. It is more important your argument flows logically and well, while making the right connections between all the requisite ideas.