Political Theory Comprehensive Examination August 2016

First Day Examination

INSTRUCTIONS: Answer one question from each of the following three groups. Please identify
clearly each question answered, and avoid repetition between answers. Answers are expected to
respond directly to the specific questions asked. Write out and sign (by color) the pledge on the face
of your exam. This is a closed-book exam. You are not to refer to any written material or discuss
this examination with anyone.

If you do not type, please attempt to write legibly. Use blue or black ink, and please skip lines.

I
1. ‘In their rush to contrast Plato and Aristotle, scholars have underestimated the profound
philosophical continuities in their political thought’. Discuss.

2. Although St Augustine was trained in Classical Rhetoric, his political thought rang the death
knell for classical political theory. Discuss

II
3. A standard textbook view is that Hobbes and Rousseau represent starkly opposed approaches
to the understanding of the modern state. In recent years, however, several scholars have
challenged this view. Do the affinities between Hobbes and Rousseau outweigh their differences?

4. Is Marx’s critique of capitalism motivated by considerations of justice, or is his work a critique of

justice itself?

III
5. While Foucault and Rawls are both critics of modern liberal capitalism, they have contrasting
attitudes to the liberal state. Rawls welcomes it as a source of assistance to individuals seeking to
lead successful lives. Foucault is suspicious of it, seeing in it a conduit for problematic forms of
control and domination. What accounts for their opposed attitudes to modern state power, and
which of their accounts is more plausible?

6. The last half-century has seen the idea of post-foundationalism emerge as a major topic. It
seems clear, however, that ‘foundationalism’ means different things to different critics, and one
can doubt that the term refers to any one thing. What in your view have been the main lines of
criticism that those hostile to so-called ‘foundationalism’ have pursued since Nietzsche? Are
these critics all attacking the same target (or at least related targets)? Or are their objections
directed against an array of independent positions that have little to do with each other?