Political Science Notes: Created Class Type Materials Property Reviewed

POLITICAL SCIENCE NOTES
Created @April 25, 2022 11:57 PM
Class Political Science
Type
Materials
Property
Reviewed
INTRODUCTION
Political - Theory - Relevant and Majority of our course
Theory is PATTERNING - It is a way of building our world - the physical or the

political world - it leads to an act of pattern building
Theory making as a process leads to the creation of a conceptual world as to what
the state (in the political sphere) do or is going to do? We hypothesise certain
changes or transformations conceptually to see how they play out
The every present question of ‘What should the state do’ brings us to a normative
sphere. Every time one votes, an imagination of such questions is invoked. In this
manner, all of us have been making use of these theories. POLSCI-I interpolates
these conceptions to a new platform of analysis.
State v Government
State - Permanent. Indian state came to be in 1947 and still continue. It is

beyond judicial or legislative institutions
Government - Temporal. It can come and go. It only rules the state.
Despite of the change in minestries, the state remains intact. Government is

embedded in the state.
POLITICAL SCIENCE NOTES 1

The question of people experience states is not being dealt with. We are dealing
with the process of theorising the job of the state.
Rights, State, Govt - Rights are enshrined in something like the constitution that lays
the rule for something that the government should follow - The government in that
sense does not grant rights. It has instead been directed by the constitution to do so
It is quite possible, in pragmatic action, for state and the government to overlap
What is the state ceases to exist? Societies, though smaller, have worked.
However, we are no longer small little areas. Nation states, borders have
emerged which has made it increasingly apparent that we cannot govern ourself.
Some institution is required to govern. - studying this need to do it on the basis
of certain principles, expectation and aspirations is the core of Political Science
as a discipline. It allows us to figure the correct relation with the state and its
populace.
BERGER
Episode 1 (Camera - Reproduction)
...
Seeing depends on habit and convention - these were used by European

art.
Perspective makes the eye the centre of the visible world.
Human eye is static. Can be at one place at a time. This changes with a
camera
Camera creates a fresh perception. It introduces an unknown world.
💡 Camera changes not only what we see but how we see it
Paintings can be present in once place. A camera changes this dynamic and
makes it every present in different sizes and places by reproducing it.

Meaning of these paintings have changes, became multiple, and got lost
(from its original paintings). People hang images of paintings in their
homes in different contexts and imbibe them with different meanings
Meanings of paintings can be further altered with the use of audios or

other distortions - like cropping
Things like music are often not consciously noticed though it can
distinctively change the meanings that we understand
Places do not belong (to certain institutions) - Images come to us and we do

not go to them. Meaning of paintings have become transferrable
Religiosity attached to ORIGINAL pieces of art due to said cultural value

(though in reality concerns monetary value) is a consequence of the
devaluation of the ideas of the images caused due to the ability to reproduce
it through cameras
Meanings have become ambiguous due to reproduction - Reproduction can

be used by anybody. It should make it easier to connect experiences.
Meanings have mystifications connected to them. Children would interpret

stories directly and connect it with themselves before they are imbibed with
mystifications
💡 Reproduction demystifies art and makes them secular
💡 Modern Communication - Meaning are controlled by the presenter.

Music, tonality, cropping can be done. No questions can be asked. BE
SKEPTICAL (as was said by the presenter of the episode himself of
the very episode)
Episode 2 (Women)
...
Men look at women. Women look at themselves being looked at.

Women are taught to survey themselves. How she appears to other
(especially men) is deemed as something important to her success?
A woman in the European culture is something to be looked at?
Nude Paintings -
Allows us to see how women were judged
Kenneth Clark - Being naked is being without clothes, being nude is art
Being naked is oneself, being nude is seen naked by other but not been
recognised as oneself (Author)
When Eve ate fruit - they realised they were naked - God punished women
and promised he would multifold her pain and make her subservient to men
The shame that is created in these paintings (Christian - Eve) is shame form
the spectator in renaissance paintings
💡 NOT NAKED AS THEY ARE BUT NAKED AS YOU SEE THEM
Mirror became a site of vanity. IRONIC - You paint a woman for your own
pleasure but make her hold a mirror and blame her vanity
💡 TO BE NAKED IS BEING WITHOUT DISGUISE. TO BE PUT FOR

DISPLAY IS HAVE ONE’S OWN BODY BECOMES DISGUISE, ONE
THAT CANNOT BE DISCARDED
Nakedness is also a celebration of active sexual love (Krishna in one of the

paintings?)
Convention of not painting hair on a woman’s body - hair symbolised sexual

passion - but the point of the paintings was to appeal to the sexuality of the
spectator (the man) and not the subject (the woman)
Nude in oil paintings is presented as an ideal subject (Humanist Idealism) -

these paintings celebrate the women within them or the male voyeur?

Consequences - Created an image inside the minds of the woman that are
not real. (extreme beauty standards) - especially with paintings. It is easier
for women to connect with pictures (as per the women interviewed in the
video)
💡 NUDITY WAS A DISGUISE. IT WAS ANOTHER GARMENT. BUT

WORSE, SINCE IT WAS A GARMENT THAT YOU COULD NOT
TAKE OFF
It also implied and enabled availability of women to men. Imposed ideas that
they are ‘waiting’.
Episode 3 (Oil Painting)

...
Oil Painting - Valuable Object - Depict things that are buyable.
Objects are often seen as ‘tangible’ - signifying material possession of the

thing that it represents (much of what follows is class discussion so pretty
relevant)
Visual of art was dominated by oil paintings in Europe in 1500-1900
Emphasis on real being solid was scientifically valid. However, now real
also became something to which possession can be attributed
Earlier paintings celebrated a static kind of presentation (mostly

divine and symbolic representation of gods - no reason for humans
to be painted) - the oil paintings represented the ability to furnish
and own. Previously, gold was used in the paintings and latter was
used for the frame. (historical transition)
Relevance of Oil paintings coming up at a certain historical

juncture (1500-1600 overlapping with modernity) - Rationalism
was becoming relevant - EXPLANATION OF WHAT
MODERNITY DID TO PAINTING - now the, ‘Man’ becomes the
centre of civilisation and he and his material interests has
become the primary subjects of painting. Berger points out:

1. Represents rise of individualism
2. Rise in Economic Wealth
They go hand in hand. This nexus is underscored by Berger.
Consequence of larger historical forces like colonialism,

transcontinental religious changes, etc.
Change in important of individual actors. Kings lose value as the
importance of individual rises. Power is shifted from gods and
churches to people that are wealthy. Ideas of equality and
justice revolve around (a) Individuality (b) Economic Concept
(the latter being a more dominant influencing factor)
Modern ideas concerning the abortion debate (example), or
freedom or justice remains to be an economic concept - This
dimension is important to consider in political theory. It is
considered by different thinkers differently. These debates need
to be understood:
1. Freidman - Freedom economic, not limited to individuality
2. Rawls - State should achieve freedom in the sense that

people have the resources to express that freedom
Both of the aforementioned thinkers are liberals, yet

their conception of freedom and the role of the state is
different. The role of the state is at the centre - It is
negotiating the dual purpose of granting freedom and
diving resources (since resources are limited)
Understanding of wealth is changing. ‘Wealth’ is ‘Power’

becomes important.
As students of political science, the idea of power (its

concentration and democratisation) becomes important.
Authority of religion or of a father is exactly political because it is
derived form historical reasons.
Concepts like Nation State are becoming important.

A historical story of the changes that are taking place in the
society is being showed by John Berger
💡 PAINTINGS BECOME A SIGNIFIER OF LARGER

HISTORICAL CHANGES OR TRANSITIONS
Themes around individualism are relevant to larger

political theory - concepts like freedom and liberty
surround the idea of who we are as individuals
Reason oil paintings become relevant is not just because it can

depict something of value but because you can own it - the
possession of the very art becomes important
Why could it not be music? - the lack of direct/ tangible possession

of the musical record. Exclusive Ownership
Oil paintings often celebrated ‘merchandise’ as their main subject -

FOOD, LIVESTOCK
💡 WHERE DOES THIS VALUE COME FROM?
Valuation is based on different societal perception - Religion, Caste - These

systems of value order our society. Berger is critical of the notion that art, in
a point of history, becomes something so valuables that an average human
cannot gauge it. A specialised ‘art historian’ is required to gauge this value.
(Berger does not explicitly say. Pati reads him to point towards this) -
This value is political. The construction and the sale of this value is
based on existing political structures and contexts.
Value is not coming from art itself but from the aura around it. People
make a beeline in louvre - How can you go to Paris and not visit Louvre?
The desire and the context in which this value is emerging is

questionable. Art makes itself seem that it is larger than human life.

It makes to be beyond human aspects like politics (like religion and
caste - you cannot critique such intrinsic aspects of the society, they
are apparently beyond politics - this conception of being apolitical is
something engendered by politics)
These values order our society - this very facet makes it political. (ex
- Sadhguru - though he never talks about politics and is hyper-
focused on internal value systems, the affect he has on the order of
the society makes his preaching extremely polticial)
How is Political classified? - It is power. What alters or affects that

power is political. Political Theory is study of that power. These
value systems allow poer to be with certain people or to be
distributed or concentrated - this facet makes it political.
💡 BIGGEST SUCCESS OF POLITICS IS TO MAKE ITSELF

SEEM APOLITICAL
Lovers of art (that makes movies, shows, etc) often keep themselves
connected to the older (original) understanding of art - despite it becoming
secular on a larger scale
History of art cannot be explained by the love of art
Showed the mindset for whom it was being painted - his possessions etc -
celebrated the existing wealth
Mary Magdalene - Either her pictures represent a prostitute who loved Christ
so much that she reformed or just an eligible woman
💡 Oil painting, before everything else, was a medium to celebrate

private possession
The reason people were getting themselves painted is because these

paintings had some sort of intrinsic value to them

Episode 4 (Advert)
...
We are surrounded by images of an alternative way of life
We briefly takes theme images and they stimulate our imagination - by

memory or anticipation
Where do these objects and people (show in these images) belong to?
Publicity proposes to use that we change ourselves by buying something

which would make us ‘richer’ though we would be poorer. They show us
people who have been transformed so we can ‘envy’ them. This envy
creates ‘glamour’
💡 WITHOUT SOCIAL ENVY, GLAMOUR CANNOT EXIST
Oil paintings and publicity images have much in common (Adverts are often
made specifically to mirror oil paintings - used as echo devices)
Related to the principle that you are what you have
Former showed what the owner was already enjoying (where did the
wealth come from, the concomitant exploitation - these questions are
not answered) - Publicity appeals to the life we aspire but do not have
right now
Publicity works on our anxieties of money
Man’s claim to virility is connected to his ability to consume
It tells you that you are inadequate as you are but offers you something to
change that
Publicity pretends to interpret the world around us - it makes a philosophy

system - things that publicity sell are neutral (they are just objects) - that’s
why context is built to add glamour - Ideas of revolution, struggle etc

Photos of refugees from then East Pakistan to West Bengal - appeal
that these need help than any others in the world as being conveyed by
the text - as soon as your turn the page of the magazine that this was
present in - you see another advert of liquor - the attitude of the
‘IMMEDIATE HELP’ that is required is in itself diluted
All different images of Pakistan and refugees and of liquor are part of
the same culture → Yet juxtaposed to each other, they present such
disconnect that it creates great incoherence
💡 Adverts invite us but exclude us at the same time
‘Politics of Art’
How we perceive a text, image can be done in a multitude of ways - based on

context
Control is extended to ways of seeing (Utkarsh)
HOBBES
Hobbes jumps into MODERN POLITICAL THEORY - begins it essentially. One
of the first few philosophers who wrote during the transition of medieval this
theory of power to the modern theory of power - this is interesting to look.
Though he is advocating for a modern form of power based on contracts and
will, he keeps coming back to an absolute form of power (advocating for it
essentially but based on modern political theory principles)
Western Political Theory Cannon - Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke-Rousseau,

Mill, Marx. Precursor to Hobbes - Niccolo macchiavelli
Canon is created by us prospectively. Scholars decide what texts they want to

look to understand the evolution of the current world - it is almost like a ‘BATON
RACE’. This selection entails adoption of a particular lens to understand human
evolution (of state and rights) - this can be based on different contingencies -

thus, the study of POLITICAL is POLITICAL (this can be contextually different -
like German Enlightenment)
Leviathan is written 3 years after the TREATY OF WESTPHALIA
Chapter 13 (Of the natural condition of mankind as considering their felicity, and
misery)
Nature mad everyone equal - even if strength or intellect manifests in an

individual more so than others - on an aggregate, inconsiderable difference
This declaration of EQUALITY OF MEN is important
Vanity (Nature of Men) - Think other to be witty, eloquent, strong but not as
much as themselves
Equality of ability leads to equality in hopes of attaining ends. But

opportunities limited. When two (equal) men want the same thing →
Becomes enemies as both of them cannot have it. This leads to diffidence
This leads to war → Men need to protect his own access to these
opportunities
Some get pleasure from conquest which is pursued at a greater extent that
is required for mere safety
Nature of Men - 3 causes of quarrel for which they invade for (3 definable
features of Human Nature - this is an individualistic understanding of men -
which is to say that every man, in himself and own actions, is of a certain
kind. Thus, the state of nature is one of conflict. State of Nature here means
the condition
1. Competition - Gain
2. Diffidence - Safety (diffidence can mean insecurity or lack of

untrustworthiness)
3. Glory - Reputation
“Without a common power to keep them in awe, they are in that condition
which is called war” (war also means that time when the will to content is
known)

During war - industry, culture, commodities, navigation, art, society, this is
because of lack of security and certainty to enjoy the fruits of the work
To one who has not weighted these things - such a conception might seem
weird. However, he still conforms through his actions - locking his doors,
looking out with suspicion, keeps himself armed
During war, nothing is unjust
Men are inclined towards peace, why? - fear of death and loss - such
desires are necessary to ‘commodious living’ - because of such, men are
drawn towards agreement
Chapter 14 (Of the first and second natural laws, and Contract)
Right to Nature - Just Naturale - Liberty to use his own power to preserve
his own nature
Such terms change. What is Right of Nature in Hobbes is different to

what is Right to Nature in Law (in latter, it refers to right to life, liberty
and property
Given by nature itself - this is why Hobbes say that UNJUSTICE cannot
exist since you are doing whatever you can and should to SURVIVE
Here, it is specifically used to protect his LIFE (that is his nature)
Liberty - External Impediments that takes away man’s power to do what he

would but not impeding his judgement
Law of Nature - Lex Naturalis - Man is restricted to something that is

destructive to his life, or take away the means of preserving the same
It is found out by reason. It is not coming from outside. It finds its source
in reason. It’s taking away divine authority and placing human reason at
its centre (a transition that was highlighted in Berger Lecture). This is
further signified by the use of his terms like ‘agreement’ and ‘contract’.
He wants authority to reside in people.
Former is a freedom while the latter is an obligation
As long as man has freedom to do any thing, security

General Rule of Reason - Man seeks peace as much as he can but when he
cannot obtain it, do whatever to use advantages of war
1. First branch - Fundamental Law of Nature - Seek peace and follow it
2. Second branch - Right of Nature -By all means we can, defend

ourselves
From this, we derived the second law of nature - When men are willing for
peace, they shall lay down right to all things and by contend with so much
liberty that they would allow to other men against themselves
To lay a right is to divest himself of the liberty that will take away similar
freedoms from another person
If other men do not do so, no reason to divest yourself of certain law
Unliked law of gospel - Whatsoever you require that others should do to

you, that do ye to them
Laying a right is to divest one of his liberty
How is a right laid down
1. Renouncement - Care who it is given to
2. Transfer - Cannot hinder those to whom the right has ben given - if such
hinderance is inflicted, it leads to ABSURDITY (which is to contradict
what once maintained in the beginning)
Rights transferred for reciprocal actions
For another right that is transferred to him
Or for some other good
Therefore, some rights are alienable that axiomatic to their existence would
not be transferrable since a reciprocal is not possible - death, wounds,
imprisonment
Contract - Transferring of rights. This is the point in time when the STATE is
being conceptualised theoretically
The ability that men has to make contracts is important. The church is
being separated from the state. It locates authority in the rational act of

men. The power to make contracts is being located in men.
Covenant (or Pact) - Do something that leave the other to do his part at
some later determinate time or contract now to perform later (element of
faith - non performance will lead to violation of faith)
Gift (or grace or free gift)- Right transferred for friendship, or service from a
friend later
Signs of Contract
1. Express - Words spoken with understanding of what they signify
2. Inference - Consequences of words, silence, actions, forbearing an

action
Words alone are an insufficient sign of a gift, and thus not obligatory
Merit and Due - what is performed first is M while what is to be received later
by performance is due
2 sorts of merit
1. Virtue of my power (contract) (meritum congrui)
2. Virtue of the giver’s benignity (gift) (meritum condigni)
Chapter 17 (Of the Causes, Generation, and Definition of a Commonwealth)
Commonwealth - Security
Laws of Nature (justice, equity, mercy) - contrary to man’s natural passions

- leads to pride, revenge etc + Covenant w/o sword are mere words =
Security
Posits the LARGE sovereign against small tribes or families - Small

additions make the strength so great that is enough to guarantee victory.
Therefore, invasion is incentivised which leads to insecurity
They won’t be able to have armies, have trade relations, etc. A lot of
what Hobbes talk about as objectives of the state cannot be facilitated.
THIS MODEL IS UNSUSTAINABLE AS PER HOBBES

A common power is required to keep men in awe - otherwise, there
multitude of interest would cause war among themselves
Certain creatures like ants stay in collective peace without a commonwealth.

why?
1. Men are continually in competition
2. Common good different from private among men, same with ants
3. Lack of reason to see problems in common interest
4. No voice to deceive
5. Cannot distinguish between injury and damage - they are not offended
by their fellows
6. Agreement by these creatures is natural. Man’s agreement is through an

artificial covenant
How can men create such a common power? - Put power and strength on
one man or body of men (one who carries this ‘sovereign power’ is called
the ‘sovereign’ while others are called his ‘subject;)
This power can be attained through 2 ways
1. Natural Force - Make others submit - Commonwealth by Acquisition
2. Agreement - All men agree to submit - Commonwealth by institution
Human Beings are given up their natural rights to a sovereign. This is where the
‘Leviathan’ comes into place. Then, the ‘Law of Nature’ comes into place -

though it existed before, people did not follow them due to mistrust. Now, with
state as a separate political entity, these are formalised and obedience can be
enforced. ‘Law’ here refers to some sense of order or rationality and not in the
sense that we understand (involving statues etc)
Chapter 18 (Of the Rights of Sovereign by Institution)
1. Form of govt cannot be changed by the subjects
Since they have already created a covenant, they cannot create a new
one without the sovereign’s permission
2. Sovereign power cannot be forfeited
3. Those that dissent must consent with the rest or be lawfully destroyed by the
rest
4. Sovereign’s actions cannot be accused or punished
5. Sovereign can decide what to do for peace and defence
6. Sovereign can decide on the rightful and wrongful doctrines
7. Prescribing rules for what a man may enjoy and not enjoy
8. Sovereign is the judge
9. To make war or peace
10. Choose Ministers
11. Rewarding, Punishing
12. Give titles of honour, appoint order of place, dignity
These rights are indivisible
When is a sovereign instituted? - Men agree together to rest power in a man or a

body of men. This institutions becomes the source of rights and faculties
MILL - LIBERTY AND REPRESENTATIVE

DEMOCRACY

Hobbes jumps into MODERN POLITICAL THEORY - begins it essentially. One
of the first few philosophers who wrote during the transition of medieval this
theory of power to the modern theory of power - this is interesting to look.
Though he is advocating for a modern form of power based on contracts and
will, he keeps coming back to an absolute form of power (advocating for it
essentially but based on modern political theory principles)
Western Political Theory Cannon - Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke-Rousseau,

Mill, Marx. Precursor to Hobbes - Niccolo macchiavelli
Canon is created by us prospectively. Scholars decide what texts they want to

look to understand the evolution of the current world - it is almost like a ‘BATON
RACE’. This selection entails adoption of a particular lens to understand human
evolution (of state and rights) - this can be based on different contingencies -
thus, the study of POLITICAL is POLITICAL (this can be contextually different -
like German Enlightenment)
Leviathan is written 3 years after the TREATY OF WESTPHALIA
Chapter 13 (Of the natural condition of mankind as considering their felicity, and
misery)
Nature mad everyone equal - even if strength or intellect manifests in an

individual more so than others - on an aggregate, inconsiderable difference
This declaration of EQUALITY OF MEN is important
Vanity (Nature of Men) - Think other to be witty, eloquent, strong but not as
much as themselves
Equality of ability leads to equality in hopes of attaining ends. But

opportunities limited. When two (equal) men want the same thing →
Becomes enemies as both of them cannot have it. This leads to diffidence
This leads to war → Men need to protect his own access to these
opportunities
Some get pleasure from conquest which is pursued at a greater extent that
is required for mere safety

Nature of Men - 3 causes of quarrel for which they invade for (3 definable
features of Human Nature - this is an individualistic understanding of men -
which is to say that every man, in himself and own actions, is of a certain
kind. Thus, the state of nature is one of conflict. State of Nature here means
the condition
1. Competition - Gain
2. Diffidence - Safety (diffidence can mean insecurity or lack of

untrustworthiness)
3. Glory - Reputation
“Without a common power to keep them in awe, they are in that condition
which is called war” (war also means that time when the will to content is
known)
During war - industry, culture, commodities, navigation, art, society, this is

because of lack of security and certainty to enjoy the fruits of the work
To one who has not weighted these things - such a conception might seem
weird. However, he still conforms through his actions - locking his doors,
looking out with suspicion, keeps himself armed
During war, nothing is unjust
Men are inclined towards peace, why? - fear of death and loss - such
desires are necessary to ‘commodious living’ - because of such, men are
drawn towards agreement
Chapter 14 (Of the first and second natural laws, and Contract)
Right to Nature - Just Naturale - Liberty to use his own power to preserve
his own nature
Such terms change. What is Right of Nature in Hobbes is different to

what is Right to Nature in Law (in latter, it refers to right to life, liberty
and property
Given by nature itself - this is why Hobbes say that UNJUSTICE cannot
exist since you are doing whatever you can and should to SURVIVE
Here, it is specifically used to protect his LIFE (that is his nature)

Liberty - External Impediments that takes away man’s power to do what he
would but not impeding his judgement
Law of Nature - Lex Naturalis - Man is restricted to something that is

destructive to his life, or take away the means of preserving the same
It is found out by reason. It is not coming from outside. It finds its source
in reason. It’s taking away divine authority and placing human reason at
its centre (a transition that was highlighted in Berger Lecture). This is
further signified by the use of his terms like ‘agreement’ and ‘contract’.
He wants authority to reside in people.
Former is a freedom while the latter is an obligation
As long as man has freedom to do any thing, security
General Rule of Reason - Man seeks peace as much as he can but when he
cannot obtain it, do whatever to use advantages of war
1. First branch - Fundamental Law of Nature - Seek peace and follow it
2. Second branch - Right of Nature -By all means we can, defend

ourselves
From this, we derived the second law of nature - When men are willing for
peace, they shall lay down right to all things and by contend with so much
liberty that they would allow to other men against themselves
To lay a right is to divest himself of the liberty that will take away similar
freedoms from another person
If other men do not do so, no reason to divest yourself of certain law
Unliked law of gospel - Whatsoever you require that others should do to

you, that do ye to them
Laying a right is to divest one of his liberty
How is a right laid down
1. Renouncement - Care who it is given to
2. Transfer - Cannot hinder those to whom the right has ben given - if such
hinderance is inflicted, it leads to ABSURDITY (which is to contradict
what once maintained in the beginning)

Rights transferred for reciprocal actions
For another right that is transferred to him
Or for some other good
Therefore, some rights are alienable that axiomatic to their existence would
not be transferrable since a reciprocal is not possible - death, wounds,
imprisonment
Contract - Transferring of rights. This is the point in time when the STATE is
being conceptualised theoretically
The ability that men has to make contracts is important. The church is
being separated from the state. It locates authority in the rational act of
men. The power to make contracts is being located in men.
Covenant (or Pact) - Do something that leave the other to do his part at
some later determinate time or contract now to perform later (element of
faith - non performance will lead to violation of faith)
Gift (or grace or free gift)- Right transferred for friendship, or service from a
friend later
Signs of Contract
1. Express - Words spoken with understanding of what they signify
2. Inference - Consequences of words, silence, actions, forbearing an

action
Words alone are an insufficient sign of a gift, and thus not obligatory
Merit and Due - what is performed first is M while what is to be received later
by performance is due
2 sorts of merit
1. Virtue of my power (contract) (meritum congrui)
2. Virtue of the giver’s benignity (gift) (meritum condigni)
Chapter 17 (Of the Causes, Generation, and Definition of a Commonwealth)
Commonwealth - Security

Laws of Nature (justice, equity, mercy) - contrary to man’s natural passions
- leads to pride, revenge etc + Covenant w/o sword are mere words =
Security
Posits the LARGE sovereign against small tribes or families - Small

additions make the strength so great that is enough to guarantee victory.
Therefore, invasion is incentivised which leads to insecurity
They won’t be able to have armies, have trade relations, etc. A lot of
what Hobbes talk about as objectives of the state cannot be facilitated.
THIS MODEL IS UNSUSTAINABLE AS PER HOBBES
A common power is required to keep men in awe - otherwise, there

multitude of interest would cause war among themselves
Certain creatures like ants stay in collective peace without a commonwealth.

why?
1. Men are continually in competition
2. Common good different from private among men, same with ants
3. Lack of reason to see problems in common interest
4. No voice to deceive
5. Cannot distinguish between injury and damage - they are not offended
by their fellows

6. Agreement by these creatures is natural. Man’s agreement is through an
artificial covenant
How can men create such a common power? - Put power and strength on
one man or body of men (one who carries this ‘sovereign power’ is called
the ‘sovereign’ while others are called his ‘subject;)
This power can be attained through 2 ways
1. Natural Force - Make others submit - Commonwealth by Acquisition
2. Agreement - All men agree to submit - Commonwealth by institution
Human Beings are given up their natural rights to a sovereign. This is where the
‘Leviathan’ comes into place. Then, the ‘Law of Nature’ comes into place -
though it existed before, people did not follow them due to mistrust. Now, with
state as a separate political entity, these are formalised and obedience can be
enforced. ‘Law’ here refers to some sense of order or rationality and not in the
sense that we understand (involving statues etc)
Chapter 18 (Of the Rights of Sovereign by Institution)
1. Form of govt cannot be changed by the subjects
Since they have already created a covenant, they cannot create a new
one without the sovereign’s permission
2. Sovereign power cannot be forfeited
3. Those that dissent must consent with the rest or be lawfully destroyed by the
rest
4. Sovereign’s actions cannot be accused or punished
5. Sovereign can decide what to do for peace and defence
6. Sovereign can decide on the rightful and wrongful doctrines
7. Prescribing rules for what a man may enjoy and not enjoy
8. Sovereign is the judge
9. To make war or peace
10. Choose Ministers

11. Rewarding, Punishing
12. Give titles of honour, appoint order of place, dignity
These rights are indivisible
When is a sovereign instituted? - Men agree together to rest power in a man or a

body of men. This institutions becomes the source of rights and faculties
B.R. Ambedkar
💡 Will India lose its independence once again?
India betrayed by its own people
In addition to old enemies like caste and creed, we have diverse political parties
with opposing political creeds. WILL WE PUT OUR COUNTRY ABOVE OUR
CREED OR OUR CREED ABOVE OUR CONTRY?
💡 Will she (India) be able to maintain her democratic character and

constitution?
Democratic System

India has had some forms of parliamentary democracies
There have been rules of Quorum, censure motion, whip, etc (in Buddhist
Bhikku Sanghas)
Possibility of new democracy giving way to dictatorship
Three Warnings
What must be done if we wish to maintain democracy not only

in form but also in fact
1. Hold fast to constitutional methods of achieving our social and economic

objectives
2. Not to lay liberties to any one ‘great’ man. Not trust anyone, no matter how
noble or great, with the power that can be used to subvert our institutions. In
politics, Bhakti or hero-worship is a sure road to degradation and to eventual
dictatorship
3. Not to be content with political democracy but social democracy
Social Democracy
Equality, Fraternity, Liberty
“We must begin by acknowledging the fact that there is complete absence
of two things in Indian Society. One of these is equality”
move into an India of contradictions - equality in politics but inequality in

social and political life
Necessary to remove this contradiction

“The second thing we are wanting in is recognition of the principle of
fraternity.”
Sense of common brotherhood of all Indians
A Great Delusion
💡 The people of India vs The Indian Nation
“I am of opinion that in believing that we are a nation, we are cherishing a great

delusion”
Can’t be a nation when we are divided into thousands of castes.
Need to realise that we are nation in a social and psychological sense
“The castes are anti-national. In the first place because they bring about
separation in social life. They are anti-national also because they generate
jealousy and antipathy between caste and caste”
“For fraternity can be a fact only when there is a nation. Without fraternity,
equality and liberty will be no deeper than coats of paint.”
Political power has been monopolised for too long
This is stolen from the downtrodden the opportunity to improve
Can only be done by establishing EQUALITY AND FRATERNITY in ALL

SPHERE OF LIFE
“Let us not forget that this independence has thrown on us great responsibilities”
“If we wish to preserve the Constitution in which we have sought to enshrine the
principle of Government of the people, for the people and by the people, let us
resolve not to be tardy in the recognition of the evils that lie across our path and
which induce people to prefer Government for the people to Government by the
people, nor to be weak in our initiative to remove them. That is the only way to
serve the country. I know of no better.”

PROPERTY AND MARKET
💡 What is the relationship between liberty and authority?
Hobbes - Authority is massive - Liberty is being given to the

authority through creation of the Leviathan
Mill - Liberty is not given to the authority. It is incumbent on the

authority to allow sustenance of liberty
Friedman - Separates civil society and economic society
Civil society can constitute of school, colleges, football club etc.
Civil society is a place beyond the state which the state cannot encroach
upon
Althusser would say this is all nonsense - everything is state
Civil society is formed post the creation of the Leviathan
Civil society is made up of private individuals
Both Friedman and Hayek take from Locke
Hayek wrote in 1944 and Friedman wirtes in 1960s - why are they compelled
to write -
World War, John Keynes - great depression, jobs
PRIMER - FREE MARKET - UTILITARIAN ARGUMENTS (for

and against) (WOLFF)
For the FM
Ownership encourages productive investment for their descendants

(deals with the justice in transfer of property than justice in initial

acquisition)
Pure Model of free market. 4 conditions:
1. Factors of production held by individuals under secure property

rights
2. Production for profit as opposed to satisfying producer’s

consumption
3. Distribution of goods by voluntary exchange
4. Free competition
Why is this ‘Pure Model’ not followed everywhere?
1. State runs certain enterprises
2. ‘Voluntary Sector’ - Production of partly charitable basis
3. Goods cannot be legally traded on the open market (heroin,

plutonium)
4. State enforced monopolies exist in certain sectors (post office,

railways, nuclear energy)
Radical opposite of this model - PLANNED ECONOMY
1. State controls ALL property
2. production is to satisfy the citizens’ needs, profit
3. Distribution is by central allocation, trade
4. State has ultimate control over who may produce how much
💡 FREE MARKET LOOKS LESS AUTOCRATIC. BUT LESS

RATIONAL. IF INDIVIDUALS ARE TAKING ALL THE
DECISIONS, HOW IS CO-ORDINATION BEING DONE?
However, despite this intuitive thought, planning in planned

economies have historically failed while free markets have had high
efficiency for the following reasons: (Expounded on by Hayak)

1. Price system signals information (basic economic supply and
demand)
2. Profit motive gives people a reason to respond to that information
2 key features of free market - (i) SIGNALLING

INFORMATION (ii) PROVIDE INCENTIVES
Based on this, we can assess 2 problems in the planned economy
1. Producer does not know what I want
2. Even if they know, why would they produce?
Historically, planned economies have suffered serious shortages
However, there are certain market failures - NEGATIVE

EXTERNALITIES - free market agents would not create goods that
have positive externalities (lights) because they are not being paid for
additional costs. FREE MARKET WILL OVERSUPPLY GOODS
WITH NEGATIVE EXTERNALITIES AND UNDERSUPPLY GOODS
WITH POSITIVE EXTERNALITIES
Against the FM
Engels critiques FM:
1. FM is wasteful
a. Inevitably leads to crisis - workers are laid off, goods are

ruined (pointing towards trade cycles of boom and bust)
b. Many who does productive work - PE would incorporate

these
c. FUCK MIDDLEMEN
2. Alienation - creativity restricted through repetitive work
3. Exploitation - Extracts surplus
(Justification - Capitalist bears risk - thus, moral claim)
4. Inequality

Utilitarianism
Would assume that distribution of goods equally is nice in U? Why -

‘Marginal Utility’ - I prefer the first cookie over the second cookie so if
there are 2 cookies, give it to two people so there total satisfaction is
more than the individual’s if he eats both of them
But, it confounds HOW GOODS ARE DISTRIBUTED with QUANTITY

OF GOODS AVAILABLE FOR DISTRIBUTION (so would the
CHAPTER 1 - SUMMARY
CENTRAL THESIS - Nexus b/w economics and politics - only certain
political an economic arrangements are possible
Economic arrangements play a dual role in the promotion of a free society

-
1. Freedom in economic arrangements is itself a component of freedom

(Economic Freedom is an end)
2. Economic freedom is a means to political freedom
Important because of their effect on concentration/dispersion of

power
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE SPEAKS OF A SINGLE

RELATION BETWEEN POLITICAL FREEDOM AND THE
MARKET, i.e of direct proportion
Typical state of mankind - Tyranny, Servitude, Misery
Exceptions to this state are the 19th and 20th century - that arrived
with the free market and capitalist models
HISTORY SUGGESTS THAT CAPITALISM IS A

NECESSARY CONDITION FOR POLITICAL FREEDOM.
IT IS NOT A SUFFICIENT CONDITION. possible to have
capitalist arrangements and freedom

What if the historical causation is just a correlation? A more robust logical
explanation is required. 2 consideration to have:
1 - Market as a direct component of Freedom
2 - Indirect relation between market arrangements and political freedom
Freedom as a value in this sense has to do with the interrelations among

people
In a society freedom has nothing to say about what an individual does

with his freedom; it is not an ell-embracing ethic. Indeed, a major aim of
the liberal is to leave the ethical problem for the individual to wrestle with
2 values that a liberal will emphasise
1. First priority to freedom
2. Realm to individual ethics and philosophy
Basic problem of of social organisation is how to coordinate large

numbers of people (especially pertinent in large societies)
2 ways
1. Coercion
2. Voluntary Operation - relies on the proposition that both parties

benefit from an economic transaction
💡 EXCHANGE can therefore bring about co-ordination

without coercion. FREE PRIVATE ENTERPRISE
EXCHANGE ECONOMY
Such a model is a collection of ROBINSON CRUSOES
Specialisation of function and division of labor would not go far if the

ultimate productive unit were the household - however, the current society
is so advanced that the unit has become the individual - with its own
DEMAND and SUPPLY

Money - has a facilitator of these exchanges play an important role
The central mechanism of coordination is money, enterprise - cooperation

is strictly individual and voluntary provided
1. Enterprises are private, so that the ultimate contracting parties are

individual, which indicates
2. Individuals are effectively free to enter of not to enter into any

particular exchange so that every transaction is strictly voluntary
(FREEDOM - LIBERTY)
Law and Order is an important element to prevent coercion of individuals

into transactions
Monopoly is a threat to this freedom - it inhibits effective freedom
“So long as effective freedom of exchange is maintained,

the central feature of the market organisation of economic
activity is that it prevents one person from interfering with
another in respect of most of his activities. The consumer is
protected from coercion by the seller because of the
presence of other sellers with whom he can deal. The seller
is protected from coercion by the consumer because of
other consumers to whom he can sell. The employee is
protected from coercion by the employer because of other
employers for whom he can work, and so on.”
CRITIQUE OF FREE MARKET - It gives people what they want than

what they ought to want
Existence of a FM does not militate the need of a gov - FM reduces

issues to be decided through political means and minimises government
participation
“The characteristic feature of action through political

channels is that it tends to require or enforce substantial

conformity. The great advantage of the market, on the other
hand, is that it permits wide diversity.”
This is how economic freedom is provided. A man can

get what he wants instead of what the society wants.
POLITICALLY, IS IS EQUIVALENT OF A SYSTEM OF
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION
Political freedom requires coercion. Preservation of freedom requires

dispersion of power so as to disallow coercion - this occurs through a
system of checks and balances.
💡 By removing political activity from the organisation of economic

activity, the market eliminates coercive power
Economic activity is easier to disperse than political activity. If economic

power is joined to political power, concentration is inevitable
ILLUSTRATION TO SEE HOW MARKET FREEDOM PROTECT POLITICAL

FREEDOM
In FM, individuals can advocate for a radical change in the structure of

the society (so long as it does not amount to coercion - IT IS A MARK OF
POLITICAL FREEDOM OF A CAPITALIST SOCIETY THAT MEN CAN
OPENLY ADVOCATE AND WORK FOR SOCIALISM
In order to advocate anything, one must be able to earn
💡 Capitalism cannot be advocated in socialist countries because

financing is impossible since little money need to be taken from a
lot of people. Whereas, in a capitalist society, due to inequality of
wealth, socialism can be advocated

💡 Market breaks the vicious circle and makes it possible ultimately to
finance such ventures by small amounts from many people without
first persuading them. There are no such possibilities in the
socialist society; there is only the all-powerful state
In a socialist society, it would not suffice to have the funds
HAYAK - SUMMARY
RISE OF FASCISM AND MARXISM was an INEVITABLE

outcome of socialist trends
PLANNING AND POWER
Planner need power over other men to achieve their ends (socialists think
that by depriving individuals of power and transferring it to a society, they
extinguish such power - instead, such power is heightened in the hands
of a few)
Competitive Society - Nobody can exercise even a fraction of power
PRIVATE PROPERTY is the most important guarantee of freedom -

control of means of production is spread out - individuals can decide what
they want
BACKGROUND TOP DANGER

Individualists (in contrast to socialism) is based on the idea that individual
should be free to develop his own talents - a result of it is the growth of
science - created in men a new sense of power over their own fate
Now, people want to replace individual autonomy with a collective and

‘conscious’ direction (such a model was perfected in Germany - liberalism
was being attached here before the advent of Nazism)
THE LIBERAL WAY OF PLANNING
Conflict between liberals and socialists - If we need systemic thinking in

planning, but how to best plan
L advocated for competition and the FM as the guiding mechanism - it is

the only method which does not require arbitrary or coercive intervention
of authority
SUCCESSFUL USE OF COMPETITION DOES NOT

PRECLUDE SOME TYPES OF GOVERNMENT
INTERFERENCE (limiting working hours, creating sanitary
arrangements, providing system for social services)
State activity is required to make disallow activities that would suppress

competition
💡 PLANNING AND COMPETITION CAN BE COMBINED ONLY BY

PLANNING FOR COMPETITION, NOT BY PLANNING AGAINST
COMPETITION
THE GREAT UTOPIA
While democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in

restraint and servitude

Democracy attacked values to the individual - extends the sphere of
individual freedom
Socialism changed freedom to mean freedom from necessity, release

from the compulsion of all circumstances which inevitable limit the range
of choice for everyone
Original Meaning - Freedom from arbitrary power
WHAT IS PROMISED TO US AS THE ROAD TO

FREEDOM IS IN FACT THE HIGHROAD TO SERVITUDE
Democratic assemblies cannot plan - due to the multitude of opinions
Thus, legislative bodies are forced to choose a person with absolute

power if they wish to execute a single plan
Planning leads to dictatorship because dictatorship is

the most effective instrument of coercion and, as such,
essential if central planning on a large scale is to be
possible.
WHY THE WORST ON TOP
What does the biggest group wants becomes the mandate in planned
economy, they are necessarily the worst, because:

1. Higher education, more differentiated tastes. So the morally and
intellectually inferior are catered to
2. The group’s number is increased by simplifying their creed
3. To weld a group together, a leader must appeal to a common human

weakness
Totalitarian group would do whatever for the ‘good of the whole’ Immoral
and Illegitimate means are used (ends justify means)
Truth ends - since conformity is brought by propaganda - make people

believe that the values they need to accept are the ones that they already
had (Ex - changed meaning of liberty and freedom)
Every activity must derive its justification from conscious social purpose
There is contempt for intellectual liberty
PLANNING vs THE RULE OF LAW
ROL - Gov in all its actions is bound by prefixed law
Socialist planning entails the opposite - the planning authority cannot tie
itself down
Gov cannot be impartial - it ceases to be a utilitarian machinery - it does

not allow individuals to grow at their fullest potential

ROL - evolved during the liberal age - greatest achievements
IS PLANNING INEVITABLE
Argument - Central planning is required because of the complexities of

the modern world
Rebuttal - u/ competition, price system automatically records all data

(supply-demand) and regulates
Socialism promises not complete equality but ‘greater’ equality
TWO KINDS OF SECURITY
1. Minimum sustenance
2. Given standard of life, that one enjoys compared to other

Liberal - such wealth is generated that the former is guaranteed
State can create a comprehensive system of social insurance to prevent

common hazards
If we are not to destroy individual freedom, competition must be left to

function unobstructed
Held + Kaviraj + Khosle

Political Theory - contested question - ‘NATURE OF STATE’ (states being an
apparatus of ‘government)
Civil Society - Evolution
Hobbes - coming of the people creates the Leviathan. Creation of the

sovereign leads to the creation of the CS - the fact that there is no industry,
art, culture implies that there is no CS. CS is created only to create the
Leviathan
Locke - CS existed as a precursor to the coming up of the state. It exists

exclusive of the want to create a state

Liberalism (question of sovereignty and citizenship)
Hobbes
Hobbes - State, both absolute and legitimate - to avoid the worst evil, i.e
civil war
H both liberal and illiberal
L - wants to uncover best circumstances for human nature (which he

understands to be selfish and egotistical)
I - Emphasises need of an all-powerful state
Leviathan - Proves in a systemic manner, excelled arguments but not

viable
Ideas of state of nature, right of nature, law of nature and social contract
MAIN ARGUMENT - if individuals surrender their rights by

transferring them to a powerful authority which can force
them to keep their promises and covenants, then an
effective and legitimate private and public sphere, society
and state, can be formed
Unique relation of sovereign to subject - Where the subject puts his will
in the sovereign, however sovereign’s dictum is absolute that the subject
is obliged to follow
While sovereignty is absolute, it is conferred by the people (idea of

consent)
Strong, secular state was offered as the most effective political form
Fundamental objective of state - Ensure Safety
Noteworthy things about H’s conception of state
1. State is regarded as pre-eminent in political and social life. State

provides the conditions for the existence of the individuals though the
latter exists prior to the former

2. Self seeking nature of individuals make absolute power of state
necessary
3. State, in all its actions, MUST be considered legitimate
Locke
Objected to Hobbes - disagreed that a ‘peaceful and commodious’ life

can only be lived under an absolute sovereign
Conceived state as a mere instrument to defend ‘Life, Liberty, and

Estate’
Strong emphasis on consent - Gov can be dissolved if the trust of the

people is violated
Has been associated with the view of division of power and mixed form
of government (though he never had a systemic doctrine regarding the
same)
SIMILARITIES w H
L’s conception of the aforementioned was different
For L, individuals exist (prior to the state) in a state of perfect freedom -

law of nature specified morality

What was the problem then? - Inadequate regulation of property - which
broadly was tied to right to life, liberty, and property
Remedy - Contract to create (1) Independent Society, (2) Political

Society or Gov
It is bestowed on the gov to do certain things which if it fails, it can be

deprived of its authority
💡 SOVEREIGNTY ULTIMATELY LIES WITH THE PEOPLE
An absolute state whose arbitrary use of authority would be given

legitimacy are inconsistent with the ultimate ends of society
L believed in a constitutional monarchy holding executive power and a

parliamentary assembly holding rights of legislation
Not clear who would be free to vote (women, slaves)
CONSENT IS A CRUCIAL AND DIFFICULT NOTION IN

LOCKE’S WRITING - It gives legitimacy to the actions of
the government
Gov, due to the original contract, is bound to the law of nature - and is to
guarantee, ‘Life, Liberty, and Estate’
Political Activity for L is instrumental - it secures the framework to enjoy

private ends
Creation of a political community or gov is the burden individuals bear to

secure their ends. Membership of a political community bestows rights,

duties, constraints, liberties
This is where L majorly deviates from H - L inaugurates the idea of

European liberalism - state exists to safeguard certain rights and
liberties for individuals who are best judge of their own interests. The
state must be restricted in scope and practice to ensure maximum
freedom
Comparatively, L’s views more prominently laid the foundation for

liberalism when compared to H
L’s views point to many things - securing individual rights, constitutional

monarchy, division of powers, representative government, separation of
powers that laid foundation for the modern state (THOUGH L’S
CONCEPTION IS RUDIMENTARY, THE ACCOUNT IS NOT DETAILED)
L, despite of being a liberal, cannot be considered a democrat (assuming

democrat = Universal Franchise)
The conception of state of nature is different for H, L and R, as a

consequence, there conception of what entails a social contracts is also
different
Liberal Democracy (liberal concerns)

Jeremy Bentham and James Mill (First advocated of liberal democracy)
There arguments are referred to as the ‘protective case for democracy’
CONTEXT - saw development of science, made them secular in their

orientation
Said that ideas of natural rights and natural law failed to understand the
basis of human behaviours - AVOIDANCE OF PAIN AND SEARCH OF
PLEASURE - Utilitarianism

Gov must act as per the principal of utility - Achievement of the greatest
happiness for the greatest number
Periodic Elections, Abolition of Monarchy, Division of Power
Advocated a ‘Minimal State’
Bentham and Mill were reluctant advocates
There ideals are referred as the ‘Founding model for a modern industrial
society’
Democracy becomes a means (end) for the end, that is the best
cultivation of all individuals
Interference only justified when harm is being prevented to others
Appropriate region of human liberty
1. Thoughts, feelings, discussion
2. Taste and Pursuits
3. Liberty of Associations
Liberty and democracy create, according to Mill, the possibility of ‘human

excellence

Representative government is essential for the protection and
enhancement of both liberty and reason (otherwise, arbitrary laws)
M was critical of vast inequalities of wealth and income - though did not
commit to political or social inequality
H, L, B, M - part of a homogeneous group - distinct from the theory of what

can be called ‘Direct’ or ‘Participatory’ democracy - earliest proponent of
which is Rousseau
Rousseau
Said humans are satisfied in their natural state - they are driven from it
by a variety of obstacles to their preservation - social contract is required
for achievement of their full potential and liberty
Such a contract should allow for self-regulation of self-government
R - against transfer of sovereignty - held that it should stay with people
Individual should directly be involved in the creation of law
The citizen must both create and be bound by ‘the supreme direction of
the general will’ - the publicly generated conception of the common good
R argued for demarcation of legislative and executive functions
L - People form the assembly and constitute the authority of the state
E - Government or Prince
Required for expediency
R excluded women from ‘the people’
Citizenship was made conditional on owning property ]

Independence and Liberty are conflated
Calling Negative Liberty Independence - can do whatever I feel like
Liberty, on the other hand, are driven by the general will
Marxism (class struggle, political coercion)

Marxism and Engels
Denied that starting point of analysis of the state can be the individual, or
his relation to the state
It is human (as a whole) who live in a definitive relation with others and
whose nature is through these relations
KEY TO UNDERSTANDING THESE RELATIONS IS CLASS

STRUCTURE
Class divisions arise only when a surplus is generated,

such that it becomes possible for a class of non-producers
to live off the productive activity of others.
These structures are based on exploitative relationship
Say that the opposition of public and private is illusory
Though state is neutral in defending the public (with the assumption

that classes do not exist), it allows sustenance of the exploitative
relationship (Althusser)
The state, then, is not an independent structure or set of

institutions above society, that is, a‘public power’ acting for
‘the public’. On the contrary, it is deeply embedded in
socio- economic relations and linked to particular interests.
2 strands of Marx thought
1. State and Bureaucratic institutions may take a variety of forms and

constitute a source of power which need not be directly linked to the

interests of the dominant class in the short run
2. State and Bureaucracy are class instruments which emerge to

coordinate a divided society in the interests of the ruling class -
MORE DOMINANT IN HIS WRITINGS
Attacked the claim that distribution of property lies outside the

constitution of political power
State is a ‘superstructure’ which develops on the ‘foundation’ of

economic and social relations
2 accounts on relation between classes and state
1. State has a degree of power independent of class forces
2. State is merely a ‘superstructure’ serving the interests of the

dominant class
Lenin (followed up on Marx’s idea)
STATE AND REVOLUTION - Lenin’s work
Insisted on eradicating capitalist relations of productions along with

destroying the capitalist state apparatus
State, as a class instrument, must be destroyed
Conceived the state as a ‘machine for the oppression of one class by

another’
Routine activities of the state exist to ensure the survival of repressive

institutions
extended the idea of - Crystallisation of class power within the organa of

state administration
Broader idea that state and bureaucracy constitute ‘parasitic’ institutions -

opposed by Max Weber
Weber - Bureaucracy (pluralism, geopolitical conceptions of

the state
Centralised administration is inescapable

Places emphasis on two elements of the modern state - TERRITORIALITY
and VIOLENCE (an important third term is LEGITIMACY
State maintains order within a territory - state finds its ultimate sanction in
the claim to the monopoly of coercion
This coercion is legitimised by a belief in the justifiability and/or legality of

this monopoly
Modern state is not an effect of capitalist, rather it precedes and supports it.
Capitalism provided a huge impetus to expanding rational administration
For Weber, B applied to all forms of large-scale organisations (universities,

civil society etc)
B is indispensable - “The choice is only ‘between bureaucracy and

dilettantism in the field of administration’”
B especially becomes important with rising industrial complexity
B state provides an impediment to usurpation of state power by officials
Dissented that analysis of power could be assimilated in analysis of classes -

though he accepted that intense class struggle has existed historically
B may enhance the potential for disruption from the below
W’s writing has had great influence on political theory, especially the ideas of
PLURALISM

Many determinants of distribution of power other than class, thus
many power centres
Power in non-hierachially
GEOPOLITICAL CONCEPTIONS OF POLITICS
Kaviraj - Class Notes

The idea of how the state comes up was radically different in pre-colonial
India. This eventual shift is what Kaviraj focuses on.
Talked of how you carry on ‘Political Theory’ in the global south - much of it
emerges in the Anglo-Saxon world
Kaviraj belongs to the subatlern studies group
Why Enchantment? What are the possible sources of this Enchantment?
It is a magical - hard to pin down where enchantment stems from - It is

inexplicable where, when, and how it happens - BUT IT HAPPENS
There is a in which in the pre-colonial (or colonial) state, people got

enchanted about the idea of the theoretical conceptualisation of the state
Social and Religious matter much more in the pre-modern society . Who do
you sit with, who do you eat with, who can you shun down? - they all signify
order. This ‘order’ os very severe and governs the political order
Political Order is subservient to this social and religious order
The shift makes the state (politically) such a strong moral force - they find
solace in that institution. It goes beyond religious and social ideas
Colonial state is a new entity - Fixed Territory, Maps, Census, Administrative

Structure
Image of Nehru unfurling the flag
Depicts a sort of transition
Previously, Nehru was at the helm of a national movement - he was with

the people (interacted with them, protested with them). Now, is is

vertically above the people institutionally in the state
Many events/activities signify moments where we can observe the

transition (or existence) of a new state. Example - A cricket match,
national anthem before sports matches, creation of a constituent
assembly, creation of a constitution
The state shifted from an indispensable political fact (social contract) to being
a moral force that produce.
Skinner discusses how we read and study an idea. He says that we need to
revisit their time - the notions need to be read in the context of how they are
made.
Gadamer - Says that it is impossible to retrieve the original. At best, we

try to make sense of what they meant
Meeting of Horizon
Hobbes - Certain kind of horizon. We have a certain kind of

horizon. We need to see them togetther.
This is why we have different readings. Different scholars are

grasping at things from different vantage points that needs to be
read and understood together
Colonial govt is changing the order - it invests into the social order (which
had previously been discrete from the political ordeR) -
Diff between the earlier and the modern state
Latter uses different technologies of power (census, Scott)
Latter interferes with the private
Latter is centralised - A strong sovereign comes up
Uniformity/ Homogeneity of laws - Personal Laws, Property Laws
Essentialism - Understanding that Indians are a certain way - they are

constituted of certain ‘essential’ characteristics, this falls in a universal trope

(universalism/universals)
Barbaric, Despotic, Uncivilised for colonialists. That manifested when

Britishers talked about how democracy won’t apply to Indians because
they are x, y, and z. This generic characterisation and the conclusions
that are drawn from it is the crux of essentialism in our current context
The change we observe demonstrates what Farr has said about conceptual
framework affecting political changes
Notion of collectivity
Kaviraj - Gandhi is creating a collective notion of politics - Dandi March -

when you are doing it together to protest against foreign impositions
Indian constitutionalist or the Indian democracy is an ideological project that

has been created through a conflict and enmeshment of ideas.
Khosle
Class Notes
Constitution - How it travels in theory? Khosla revisits different theorists -

Hobbes, Bentham etc - he is arguing how these ideas travelled to
constitute the modern state
Freedom drives the question of state and politics. Earlier, the formation
of state drove the idea of freedom
Modern Constitution - Any kind of modern force would give us the

freedom of who we want to be. Constitution creates the condition where
people can create a political force where people can decide what they
want to do
Khosla has argued that constitution is not to be seen as a gradual

progression for the nationalist movement - instead, it is a BREAK.
Talks about state as a pedagogical project

💡 POVER v SOVEREIGNTY - while former is hard to grasp and is
present in different networks and nodal points, latter is very
established; it is entrenched in the state. Whenever there is
challenge to S, it is taken seriously - that is why laws like TADA,
UAPA are implemented. Sovereign power lies within the state and
it is necessary for the state that others recognise that they are the
only ones who wield that monopolised power
Why is Khosla talking about power in the first place?
Creation of the constitutional effectively changes structural power

dynamics - where men and women are not equal, upper caste and
lower caste are not equal - these differences are getting re-ordered
Role of the constitution broadly (as driven by Ambedkar) is also to

change existing power co-ordinates in the society (till now, power
structures are characterised by feudalism, gender, caste etc)
Pertinent to note that it is mostly in form (substance) - at least in the

eyes of the law, power is being democratised in the 1950s
Checks and Balances, Separation of Powers, Federal Lists,

Amendment checks, Fundamental Rights - they are methods to
place limits on the power of the state - by stopping it from being
absolute, it is dispersed and democratised
1946 - Nehru - Aims and Objects Resolution - “Unfortunate legacies of the

past - Imagination of the Indian problem”
This event was a formal declaration of the terms under which Indians
would perform the rituals of self-rule
As per Nehru, India’s revolution matched with that of America, France,

Russia as a historical moment
‘Sin of Essentialism’ - James Mill - History of British India - posited Indians to

be certain kinds of people characterised by certain ‘essential traits’

Such works suggested - HUMAN BEHAVIOUR IS A CAUSE AND
CONSEQUENCE OF POLITICS
Hobbes would have regarded it as the inverse of state formation
Anxieties about spread of democracy
1. Discovery of Society - Interactive frameworks beyond the alien political

realm
2. Emergence of the Economy - Rise of commercial conclaves
These features complicates Hobbesian political spheres who emphasises the

independence of politics and portrayed a certain kind of freedom that the
political sphere promised
Threat to Leviathan - church and noble lords - now, as power structures are
complicates, there threats were different and multifold
This is where Khosle goes into conceptions of power and sovereignty

(refer class notes)
What are the questions that Khosle deal with?
1. Connection between liberalism and empire
2. Relationship between Western and Non-Western categories
3. Contrast b/w 19th and prior centuries
4. Assortment of reasons and justifications given for European expansion
His work deals with India’s founders responses to the problems of

democracy and its preconditions
They believed in the possibility of creating democratic citizens through

democratic politics
The political apparatus that effectuates the transition of democracy has 3 key
elements
1. Representation centred on an individual
2. Explication of rules through codification
3. Existence of an over-arching stage

Works of scholars saw India working on a kind of ‘Animal Politics’ - It denies
the role of ideas and asserts that historical changes are necessarily caused
by political life
Ambedkar’s warning against imitation - Bentham drafted constitutions for SA

- none of them worked and they burnt all the extra copies later. It was
necessary that the Indian constitution is modelled as per its own nuances

LOCKE + HUBERMAN
Prayers, Fighters - Workers
Land - Only source and representative of wealth (All institutions - church, the
crown - had possessions that displayed power in terms of land)
Church was the riches and the most powerful land owner of the middle
ages
Church - Did charity but not in proportion to its tremendous wealth.

Critics point that if the Church had not worked the serfs so hard, the

charity would have not been required in the first place
Priest - dont marry - so land doesn’t split through inheritance
Varied kinds of serfs (Free, Villein)
Serfs not like slaves - families could not be torn apart
Tradition had the force of law which worked on the basis of mutual
obligations
Lord of Manor liable to another lord higher up in the scale (vertical hierarchy)
Widow would be remarried. Permission to not
Special permission before marrying outside the manor so to not dilute the
labour force
Enter the Trader
These days - people don’t keep money - they invest it. Previously, it was not
so. “Whatever capital the prayers and the fighters had was inactive, fixed,
motionless, and unproductive”
Money not required - obtained on the manor - economy of consumption
Variability in weights and measures - long distance trade dangerous and

difficult - trading grew later.
Cursades gave an impetus - based on advantages won by certain groups
1. Church - Wanted to extend its power.
2. Byzantine Church - Saw crusades as a means of checking the muslim

advance into its own territory
3. Nobles and Knights - Wnated money
4. Italian Cities (Venice, Pisa) - Trading cities - Opportunity to gain

commercial advantage
Development of trade brought with it a change from the old natural economy
in which economic life went on practically without the use of money
With money’s introduction, time and energy was saved (remember al

criticisms of the barter system in economics). Growth in trade reacted to the

extent of the money transactions
Shift from 12th and 13th century where Fuedal land starts to break up
Huberman is talkibg about a certain kind of economic and political organisation

within Feudalism
Though split, the changes organsiation had a sense of commons - this is seen in
Indian villages - POND, RIVERS, WELLS - belongs to the entire village - where
cows can go and graze
With industrial revolution, these lands are being transformed into industries.
Fuedal serfs move to the citites to work as wage-seekers. This historical
transformative transition is being explained by Huberman - this change is called
the - ENCLOSURE MOVEMENT - of essentially laying down the boundaries
where what belongs to who (the notion of common holding is dwindling)
some ideas of LAW OF TORTS - such as Tresspass - came up as a

consequence of the ENCLOSURE MOVEMENT
If a kid jumps over to your house and your bog bites him, who is
responsible? - Needs to be understood while keeping ownership and
possession of private property in mind. This private property is held in
exclusive authority to others.
LOCKE ON PROPERTY
L attempts to provide a moral justification of property
As per Nozick - a theory of property needs to have
1. Justice in Initial Acquisition
2. Justice in Transfer
3. Justice in Rectification
L’s chapter in his Second Treatise provides justification for the INITIAL
ACQUISITION
(Locke takes for granted that if you own property, you have some additional
rights. Such as being able to transfer it or bequeath it)

Notion of ‘Labour’ is imp in Locke’s account
L provides 4 arguments
1. Argument from Survival
Initially, the world is owned in common by all humans
Fundamental law of nature (that L builds on his earlier chapters) -

Mankind is to be preserved as much as possible
We must be justified to do whatever to survive
This consumption is restricted by the ‘Lockean Provisos’
1. Not take more than needed
2. Leave ‘enough and as good’ for others
Limitations
1. Justifies appropriation of only objects we need to survive
2. Does not specify how objects are taken into private ownership
2. ‘Labour-Mixing’
2 premises
1. You own your labour
2. Labouring on an object allows you ‘mix your labour’ with that object’
But L fails to explains why in the first place, if you mix something that
you own with something that you do not own, you start owning the latter
3. ‘Value-Added’ argument
Labouring increases the value of the property (mostly land)
But what should entitle you only to the surplus value? The land’s value
existed prior to. man and his labour. Ownership entitles you to the value
of that land which is not explained
4. Industrious Person/ Unlimited Land
2 persons as per L - Industrious and Quarrelsom

Former improves the land, land only wants the land on account of
his laziness
Land should be granted to the Industrious for it to develop
Another assumption that there is enough land that one’s ownership

is not at the expense of the other hand. So if the industrious is using
to develop, why stop?
If I works hard, they deserve the fruits of their labour (classic

capitalist argument)
Fails on similar grounds as the previous one - best case

scenario is entitlement to the surplus value and not the entire
property
This kind of logic fuels contemporary development and colonial projects.

European conquests looks at natural resources in there colonies - “Oh!
These guys have not used there resources properly. There possession
is unethical. I have a right to take it from them.” However, this misses
the local relations and connections that are hampered
Why do we need a minimal state or a night’s watchman state as per L?
To do minimal purposes such as protect law and order and right to property.
Beyond that, L believes that any sort of encroachment is beyond the
mandate of what the state is supposed to do
Unlike H, he is willing to give absolute power to the sovereign despite of the

fact that he makes his argument based on social contract
note - historically, and chronologically, L is writing close to H (so there are similar
times of tumult in Europe but there is also a transition into democratic ideas of
state)
Towards the latter part of L’s text, it also talks about checks and balances. A
transition into a modern idea is visible. For this reason, the SECOND TREATISE
is a very relevant and important text.
Letter Concerning Toleration - Similar to the idea of negative liberty - he makes

the argument that state should not intervene into what is individuals’ private

ethos
L’s conception is anthropo-centric. Talks of how the natural world - with all its
resources and non human beings - is there for people to make use of. This sort
of conception is something more pervasively visible in modernity.
While this might be a good thing to value men. It has also sanctioned mis-
appropraition of resources and exploitation of people
But was it not somethign ubiquitous in ancient times when kings would hunt
and all that shit?
1. Now, there is a sanction to whatever. Man is at the center. The idea of

inter-dependence with nature has decreased
2. Instead of sanction to hunt or appropriate because of say sovereign

power, people were given the right to appropraite as a natural right
3. (MOST IMPORTANT) Money - something both L and Hu talks about it. It

changes patterns of relation and consumption. In barter, co-incidence of
wants limited consumption and accumulation. With currency, people
could accumulate more, invest more, gain wealth.
L has talked of land to be the main source of wealth. In our times, wealth is
much more broad - fucking bitcoin out of everything, NFTs, DATA, personal
information-
You can only assume things till they spoil. If you are having things that you are
letting spoil, that is unethical. But when money comes in, you can hoard wealth
without spoiling it (since you hoard in the form of money or coins that can be
used whenever)
He is expressing some form of discomfort
The thing is now, accumulation of wealth adds to the common stock of

manking. Wealth can be accumulted without exclusively harming some other
group
The ideas that economies, if they are growing, are justified since they increase
the common stock (inequality is sanctioned by saying that NATIONAL GROWTH
IS THERE)

Contemporary Example - India, China praised for there doubly digit or high
GDP growth. This circumvents the uncomfortable truth of inequality
Signifies a notion of trick down economy
BHAGWATI - can be extrapolated. Locke sowed the seeds of Bhagwati’s

conception of growth
L has highlighted social relations that create property
L is not merely talking of land (or objects for that matter), he is talking of the
social dynamics that create rights or claims over these lands
CHERYL HARRIS
If property is a social relation, who sanctifies this relationship. IT IS THE LAW
L wanted state to protect life, liberty, and property - how does state do it? LAW
LAW is central to to allowing PP to sustain
Harris is a black legla theorist. It is crucial for her to open to up about what law
does
She challenges the very basis of liberalism itself
Liberalism - HOBBES AND LOCKE - that base there ideas on individualism

or the premise that all individuals are equal
C says no. Historical disadvantage has arbitraily undid any pre-existing idea
of individualism. Naturally, any sanction on claims over property is undone.
Something that we did in DAVID HELD - that state is a neutral arbiter -

state’s job is merely to mediate (again, a premise that is rebutted by Cheryl)
State and the Law are in cahoots in the notion of privilege and who has access
to this privilege
Different theories of property
Labour Theory - as propounded by L

Utility Theory - Resources are divided so as to allow
We inhabit this bordered world that is created as a consequence of ‘whiteness’

(or upper casteness) as a property
Ask who you talk to, sit with, make fun of etc.
There is a way whiteness or caste is performed
Justice - Rawl
R is trying to build a buffer idea of the more general abstract notion of freedom
He is delineating limitations and boundaries in which freedom (or equality)

for that matter should be exercised
He says he is not looking at a narrow conception of justice but is instead looking

at the idea at a braoder societal level
How can we create a just society in the ‘1970s’. 3 points of context:
1. Around this time, ideas of liberalism (primacy of freedom as a principle)

is sufficiently entrenched in America.
2. By 1975, political fallouts of the capitalism system is coming to the

forefront - so there are also criticisms of the inequality that has been
created
3. How can Ameria be diverse and accommodating? Such diversity has

made singular ideas of what is justice and of a common good
irrelelevant
w/o imposing a single order or a single principe, how can these

contingencies be accommoated for
Rawls ask if we are actually creating a justice system by creating an
overarchign system of what is just - since Utilitarianism entails adding up of
numbers, it is against the minorities
Here, R’s critique of U begins - since it does not accomodate the existence
of diversity

The book is written two decades prior to 1970s - however, the conversation (in
anticipation) around diverse needs starting emerging in late 50s. This also
explains the higher level of abstraction of Rawls.
R focuses on DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE.
His focus is deontological - it is based on process. It is not deviced with an end

in mind (such as Marxism - its end being a classless society)
This comes from Immanuel Kant - he is someone who is very invested in the
question of Morality - he believes that human beings are innately capable of
moral reasoning
Kant argues that a child who steals knows that it is wrong despite of not
understanding other bits about the world.
KANT CALLS IT CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
R is doing something similar with DJ
L is not letting to of the self interested individual
He is holding off to both the conceptions of the individual - one who is individual
and one who can ascertain moral actions
Critique of Utilitarianism - It does not hold individuals as equal. It would sacrifice

individuals in the name of commo good. This is why he is opposed to socialism
or communism - it sacrifices individual freedom in the name of collective good
(this is what is happening in Soviet with the rise of Stalian)
R wants to retain the conception of the free individual who cannot be sacrificed.
Coneption of good of every individual is important
BHAGWATI’S CONCEPTION OF THE PIE IS A UTILITARIAN IDEA OF

INCREASING THE COMMON GOOD (MONEY). BUT HE DOES NOT CONSIDER
WHAT THE COMMON GOOD FOR CERTAIN PEOPLE ARE. MOREOVER, HE
MISSES THE FACT THAT CERTAIN PEOPLE ARE NECESSARILY LEFT OUT
ASSUMPTIONS OF R:

1. Human beings live in a culture where we are by and large recirprocate
2. Multiple notions of good can co-exist
3. A principle is beneficial if it does some some harm if it is doing other people no

harm (so R is not propounding a system where everyone is similarly placed -
instead, he is propounding a system of equality of opportunity)
Evidently, ideas of what is important as per political theory has changed

If Hobbes is concerned of security and protection of life, R is looking at a system
where people are by and large claiming an equal status.
Based on this, R has pointed out how people belive different things to constitute
the common good.
A person has two moral powers: the capacity for a conception of the good’ and
‘capacity for a sense of justice.’
The conception of good is the ability to conceptualise, revise and rationally

pursue an idea of a worthwhile human life
The capacity for justice refers to the ability to comprehend and apply the
principles of justice to own’s own actions
Original/ General Position - Veil of Ignorance - (important keywords)

R is saying that to arrive at principles of justice, everyne would have to go under a
VOI
You forget only your own socio-economic location

Under this viel, 2 principles are derivd at:
1. Liberty Principle - Every individual has the basic rights to access the most
extentive basic liberties as long as they are compatible with liberties of others
2. Difference Princuple - Social and Economic inequalities must be arranged in a

away that they are of the greatest benefit to the least advantaged members of
society, and equality of opportunity must be maintained for offices and jobs

R’s primary focus is on EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY and EQUALITY OF
OUTCOME
R’s principles can be instrumental in explaining affirmative actions in educational
institutions, job, promotions - Why? Because - (i) It is not sure where the race starts
(ii) Substantive Equality
R refuses to let of competition. He still endorses the meritocratic order that has been
propounded by Locke etc. But the competititon should be fair and thus, equality of
opportunity
Conditions on inequality - Justified to the extent that the least advantages is

benefitted
ex - Progressive Tax Redistribution
Rawls is a social contractarian - he imagines what people are like without (or before)
the contract (which is referred to as the original position) - from that position, people
discuss and debate to reach the priniples on which the society is based on
He does try to pose as not being a contrarian on basis of certain ideas. However,
the broader method and line of reasonign that Rawls follow are that of a
contrarian
He is imbuing a notion of morality into society - how will morally inclined and
rationale individuals become part of a civil society? - what would they agree to and
what would they not agree to
R is not worried too much about the state - he is more worried about the people
Rawls start from intuition (that all humans are capable of moral intuition) → This is
further translated into principles. This is where R’s critique of Mill comes in. Mill
finished at intuiton (special urgency of moral feelings) - he left it at the abstract
without cementing a principle

Hobbes and Locke has different ideas of political obligation
H are expected to give consent the state that cannot be revoked
L - it can be revoked. But generally, consent is there and people should listent ot
the state
R also has the notion of political obligaiton
1. Moral - There is moral inclination to listen to the stae
R has made a way more sophisticated argument than L - on based of fair play - you
are, as morally independent individuals, have morally agreed to certain rules under
this veil of ignorance.
R work forms important basis for how we think of ideas of merit, ownership, etc.
Modern constitutionalism works on ideas of fairness and alll.
But, it is not as if Ambedkar read Rawls specifically and inculcated it in the
constitution. However, the broader theories of justice and fairness have travelled
through many people (Rawls is just one of the pioneers that formulated it in a
canoncial text)
Young + Goldberg
Citizenship - Young
Idea of a universal citizenship carries 2 meanings (this is how the aspect of

universality is emphasises)
1. Signify what citizens have in common, as opposed to how they differ
2. Laws apply similarly
Now, all groups formally have equal citizenship, yet some are treated as
second class citizens. Scholars have been asking why?
The link - equal citizenship and equal treatment - is problematic.

Contemporary social movements have weakened this link (some have

emphaises the idea of differentiated citizenship as a means to allow real
inclusion)
Main Thesis
CITIZENSHIP AS GENERALITY
INTEREST GROUP PLURALISM - fragments policy and individual
interests → hard to assess such aspects comparatively → makes
majoritarian interests stand out (”facilitates the domination of corporate,
military, and other powerful interest”)
Young suggests that democratic processes require the

institutionalization of genuine public discussion
Notion that a public realm of citizenship expresses a general will (that is,
a common point of interest among citizens that goes beyond their
differences) demands for homogeneity

Leads to exclusion of minority groups that takes difference to the
majoritarian general will
The excluding consequences of the universalist ideal of

a public that embodies a common will still exist
This ‘Civil Republicanism’ - is in tension - with Hobbesian and Lockean

notions based on individualist contract theory
Feminist Critique
‘Masculine’ notions (militaristic norms of honor, homoerotic

camaraderie) were deemed universal values of the public realm
Modern men ignores sexual difference and the virtues of the ‘other’
(women, in this case) by universalising such values
Ex - Rousseau excluded women from the public realm of citizenship

because they are caretakers of affectivity, desire, and the body
Another example - Founders of America who, despite of parading the

virtues of formal equality and equal citizenship in want of homogeneity,

deliberatly excluded women, people of colour, working class from equal
rights
Contemporary critics of interest group liberalism who call

for a re- newed public life certainly do not intend to exclude
any adult persons or groups from citizenship
Text of Benjamin Barber - Strong Democracy - concrete vision of

participatory democratic processes. Argues against political theorists
who support models of discourse purified of AFFECTIVE DIMENSIONS.
Distinguishes b/w public realm of citizenship and the private realm of

particular identities
Citizenship does not exhause individual social identities, but it takes

moral priority over social acitivities.
Facilitating interest must happen within a framework that is a function

of the common interests
In exervising Citizenship, people should assume an impartial,

general point of view
Young deems the same to be impossible
People’s perspective of public issues is a function of their

situated experience and perception of social relations
Different social groups have different needs based on their

different culture, history, experiences etc

Barber asserts responsible citizenship required transcending
particular commitments and needs - since a public cannot function if
its individuals are concerned with private interests
Young challenges this by arguing that Barber confuses plurality

and privatization
Possible to maintain groups identity and be influenced by

specific experiences while being receptive of other’s claims and
not being concerned for their own gain
DIFFERENTIATED CITIZENSHIP AS GROUP

REPRESENTATION
Empirical study to show how silenced groups’ voices are suppressed in
participatory forums (such arguments have been made by Amy Gutmann
- Young mentions)
Example - Community schools - increased democratization led to

increased segregation - more priveleged and articulate whites were able

to promote their perceives interest against blacks’ demand for equal
treatment
when participatory democratic structures define

citizenship in universalistic and unified terms, they tend
to reproduce existing group oppression
Gutmann argues that such oppressive consequences of democratization

imply that social and economic equality must be achieved before political
equality can be institute
Paradox of Democracy - Social power makes some citizens more equal

than others, and equality of citizenship makes some people more
powerful citizens
Solution - Institutionalised means for the explicit recognition and

representation of repressed groups
What is a group?
Group, as a concept, is politically important because recent

emancipatory movements have mobilized around group identity as
opposed to exclusive class/ economic interests
Several marks that distinguish a social groups from other collecticites
1. Affinity with other pesons of the group
2. A person’s history, mode of reasonins, social relations is partly

constituted by their group
Group must be distinguished from - AGGREGATE and

ASSOCIATION
Aggregate - as per attribute (eye colour, hair). Group represents

a shared sense of identity
Association - People come together voluntarily (club, political

party, church)
Group should be understood in relational terms (instead of an

essence of a specific set of similar attributes). Social processes

generate groups by creating relational differentiations, situations of
clustering and affective bonding in which people feel affinity for other
people
When is it oppressed?
1. EXPLOITATION - Benefits of their work goes to others without

reciprical benefit
2. MARGINALIZATION - Excluded from particpation in major social

activities
3. POWERLESSNESS - Live and work under others’ authority
4. CULTURAL IMPERIALISM - Stereotypes as a group. Their individual

experience and situations become invisible to the society
5. Group members suffer arbitrary acts of violence
3 activities
1. Self-Organization of group members - to let them gain collective

empowerment
2. Institutionalized contexts where a group’s analysis of social policy

proposals is heard - Such context requires policy makers to show
that their perspectives have been taken into consideration

3. Veto power regarding specific policies (something like constitutional
amendment powers - where state’s vote is requires for certain
things)
Young does not deem this actions to be completely pragmatic. Instead,

they signify the society’s role to always be commiteed to representation
for oppressed or disadvantages groups
Theorists support citizenship - because it ostensibly allows individuals to

transcend merely self-centeres motivation
Problem of universality occurs when this responsibility has been

interpreted as transcendence into a general perspective
The only way to have all group experience and social perspectives
voiced, heard, and taken account of is to have them specifically
represented in the public
Because no one can really claim to speak for the general interest, no
one can can speak for others, no one can speak for all

Group Representation best institutionalizes fairness under circumstances
of social oppression and domination. It maximises knowlegde expressed
in discussion, and thus promoted practical wisdom
Rainbow Coalition - Heterogeneous public with forms of groups

representation
A problem attises - how do you decide which groups deserve specific

representation?
I propose a principle of group representation as a part

of such potential discussion, but it cannot replace that
discussion or determine its outcome.

It should be a part of a larger program for democratized decision-
making processes
How is heterogeneous public different from interest group pluralism?
1. Here, not any collectivity can form an association. A ‘group’ based

status is required
2. Here, groups represented are not defined by some particular goal or

political position. They signify comprehensive identity and ways of
life
3. Here, participants discuss issues together. In IGP, public discussion

forestalled by prioritising majority voices
UNIVERSAL RIGHTS AND SPECIAL RIGHTS

Universality of citizenship is in tension with the goal of full inclusion and
participation of all groups in political and social institutions - Universality
in the formulation of law and policies
Currently, there is social consensus that all persons are of equal moral
worth - however, there are still differences. Many argue that rights and
rules that are universally formulated and thus blind to differences of race,
culture, gender, age, or disability, perpetuate rather than un- dermine
oppression.
Dilemma of Contemporary Movements
One side, they must deny any essential differences between groups
On the other side, they must affirm certain differences to account for
historical disadvantage

Young argues that Special Rights for disadvantaged groups are
appropriate
Example - Maternity leave for women
In each case the political claim for special rights emerges not from a
need to compensate for an inferiority, as some would interpret it, but
from a positive assertion of specificity in different forms of life
Affirmative Action breached formal equality. Defended in two ways
1. Compensation for historical disadvantage
2. Compensation for current disadvantage due to historical reasons
Young presents a THIRD reason - compensating for cultural biases

(EVALUATER’S BIAS)
AA compensate for dominance of one set of cultural attributes
GOLDBERG
Essay in Moral Philospophy
Why are we doing it - how does it connect with Political Theory - Contract
theoyr has been trying to come up with a theory of how state interacts with
state, which is essentially an ethical problem
How does one be one become a moral agent - KOLBERG’S THEORY OF

MORAL DEVELOPMENT

1. Pre-Conventional - Driven by obedience, punishment, self-interest (at
the stage of a child - they cry because their self interested need of
getting food is not met)
a. The child does not know what the norms of the society are. It is
fundamentally driven by the treatment that is meted to the child -
that is, punishment
2. Conventional - Intermediate Stage - You look for interpersonal accord

and conformity - you look for authority and social order
a. As you get older, you realise there are certiain norms
b. Social Contract - Here, you can see the beginning bits of Kant and
Rawls. You realise that the society consists of a constitutive
relationship
3. Post-Conventional - Universal Ethical Principle - you do not do a certain

act just because of a ‘rule’ says so - but you are able to arrive at a
reason (or a principle) as to why you are doing certain things
Not everyone arrives at Post-Conventional as per Kolberg

- it is a gradual process of learning
Difference between Conventional Norms and Post-Conventional Ethics -

Norms can be unjust. You follow them just because they seemingly have
authority. Once at the post-conventional stage, you are able to
challenge such norms
This model is being critiqued by Carol Giligan
Post Conventional Formalism (which is what Kolberg talks about) versus

Post-Conventional Contextualism
PC Formalism is defined by concerns of the public domain (like justice

and rights). It is essentially about regulating our domain in the public.
Rawls talk about justice as the first virtue of an institution - but this
‘institution’ is limited to those in the public domain

Ex - Family is taken at a default moral institution. They are not subjected to
inside-family dynamics
PC Contexualism - How we reach what moral development is - we need

to account for where people are situated in terms of their relationships
with other people
Change in PC F to PC C is not just changing the meanings of ‘moral

development’ but it is to change the entire structure through which MD is
assessed
How are you doing to account for empathy, care, family etc?
It emphasises the need to mvoe away from static principles and look
at situatedness
Kolberg used certain tests to assess moral development - Women

constatnly scored lower. Giligan asks why?
Because they are only accounting for certain ideas of morality at the
expense of others (empathy, care)
That’s why, women’s moral values inside family structures are not
accounted for
Moreover, there positonality is accounted for
Kolbetg’s defense
1. Data Base - No difference between children and adolescenets in

terms of justice reasoning. Therefore, the difference between adults
can be understood through participation, responsibility and role
taking in secondary (public) institutions
Why is gender not affecting children? He says that gender,

intrinsically, does not affect the moral score. Later, in their adult
stage, because
2. Within the Old Theory - The difference in care and responsibility

versus justice and rights are not two tracks, but two orientations of
moral development.

MD is happening at one level - through development of care and
responseibility - and on the other hand, through justice and
rights
Care and Responsibility - happen in private domains with family

and friends
3. Object Domain - Ego (divided into cognitive, interpersonal, and

moral functions) is not sufficient for moral development. Moral
development can be studied independently
Ego is not the basis of moral development
Cause
Moral Development can be studied indepndent of learning the

‘Ego’ or leaning aspects of the ‘I’
Giligan (and other feminist scholars) emphasises the need

to study I - what is the self and where is the self?
Giligan is arguing that accounting for positional difference is important to

have a better ‘moral development’ framework
Hobbes to Rawls (imp)
Underpinnings of such a theory are important to create a feminist

critique
When B does that, she talks of what has been the basis of normative
traditions within this tradition
There theories are substitutionalist: they abstract from a specific subject

a universal norm
How is Bnehabib arguing for a universal morality while rejecting the

universal self?

Differentiates between Substituionalist Universalism from Interactive
Universalism (favours the later)
Agrees that normative disputes can be settles rationally
It is not the consensus basis through which we arrive at morality - it is

not based at a fiction of this self - not based on an idea of a
substitutionalist self
You acknowledge plural modes of being and difference among people

but you cannot deem such difference morally valid
Every single difference does not have a place in moral theory
Universalisitc, Contractarian theories have led to privatization of women’s

experience
Moral self is a disembodies and a disembedded being
It is an assumption as to how the contract is formed. The ‘moral self’

signified the reasonable self that enters the contract
The reasoning happens in abstraction of society - that is, you are

separated from the society. Thus, you are DISEMVODIES AND
DISEMBEDDED and this, intrinsically reasonable
The ‘other’ is a always a brother
This ‘self’ is at odds with universalism and reversibility as principles of

morality
Universalism - One principle applies to everyone
Reversability - You should reasonably be able to expect the other

person to do the same as you would do to them. If you are kind to

someone, you would expect them to be kind to you when you are in a
similar position
If I take a person and generalise it, it is not applicable to others. Such a ‘self’
envisions a specific person to be present in the public domain and fails to
account for difference among individuals.

SOCIAL CONTRACT: JUSTICE AND THE AUTONOMOUS
SELF
Differentiation between justice and ‘good life’ aims at defending privacy and
autonomy of the self
Special relationships of obligations (care and responsibility), which concern

problems such as marriage and divorce
The care orientation is said thus to concern domains that are

more“personal” than“moral in the sense of the formal point of view”
THE GENERALIZED VERSUS THE CONCRETE THER

Two conceptions - ‘Generalized’, ‘Concrete Other’
The standpoint of the generalized other requires us to view each and

every individual as a rational being entitled to the same rights and duties
we would want to ascribe to ourselves.
Relation to the other is governed by formal equality and reciproacity
Norms of interactions are primraily public and institutional ones
In treating you in accordance with these norms, I confirm in your

person the rights of humanity and I have a legitimate claim to expect
that you will do the same in relation to me
The standpoint of the concrete other, by contrast, requires us to view

each and every rational being as an individual with a concrete history,
identity and affective-emotional constitution.
Relation goverend by equity and complementary reciprocity
Norms of interaction are usually (though not exclusively) private and

non-institutional
Such as friendship and love. In interactions, you not only

confirm others’ humanity but their individuality
Kohlberg argues that Rawlsian ‘Veil of Ignorance’ exemplifies the

formalist ideas of universality and reversibility

Banhabib is challenging the ideas that the assumption that “taking the
viewpoint of others” is truly compatible with this notion of fairness as
reasoning behind a “veil of ignorance”
Rawlsian Original Position - have no moral dilemmas - their

perspective is fully disembedded
Since Kolhberg’s individuals have constructed mora ldilemmas, they

are not subjected to similar epistemic restrictions as R’s VOI
Though the way K poses his dilemmas, such restrictions are

imposed on them
Rawls recapitulates a basic problem with the Kantian conception of the

self, namely, that noumenal selves cannot be individuated.
B is challenging the epistemic assumptions of R and K

The “Generalized” versus the “Concrete” Other
Reconsidered
Distinction between GO and CO is not merely prescriptive but critical
Benhahib’s trying to develop a UNIVERSALISTIC MORAL THEORY that

defines the ‘moral point of view’ in light of the reversibility of perspectives
and an ‘enlarged’ mentality
Substitutionalist universalism dismisses the concrete other

behind the facade of a definitional identity of all as rational
beings, while interactive universalism acknowledges that
every generalized other is also a concrete other.
Diffused vs Different Assumptions

Political Science Notes: Created Class Type Materials Property Reviewed

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Political Science Notes: Created Class Type Materials Property Reviewed

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

POLITICAL SCIENCE NOTES

Created @April 25, 2022 11:57 PM

Class Political Science

Theory is PATTERNING - It is a way of building our world - the physical or the

State - Permanent. Indian state came to be in 1947 and still continue. It is

Despite of the change in minestries, the state remains intact. Government is

POLITICAL SCIENCE NOTES 1

Seeing depends on habit and convention - these were used by European

Perspective makes the eye the centre of the visible world.

Camera creates a fresh perception. It introduces an unknown world.

💡 Camera changes not only what we see but how we see it

POLITICAL SCIENCE NOTES 2

Meanings of paintings can be further altered with the use of audios or

Places do not belong (to certain institutions) - Images come to us and we do

Religiosity attached to ORIGINAL pieces of art due to said cultural value

Meanings have become ambiguous due to reproduction - Reproduction can

Meanings have mystifications connected to them. Children would interpret

💡 Reproduction demystifies art and makes them secular

💡 Modern Communication - Meaning are controlled by the presenter.

Men look at women. Women look at themselves being looked at.

POLITICAL SCIENCE NOTES 3

A woman in the European culture is something to be looked at?

Allows us to see how women were judged

💡 NOT NAKED AS THEY ARE BUT NAKED AS YOU SEE THEM

💡 TO BE NAKED IS BEING WITHOUT DISGUISE. TO BE PUT FOR

Nakedness is also a celebration of active sexual love (Krishna in one of the

Convention of not painting hair on a woman’s body - hair symbolised sexual

Nude in oil paintings is presented as an ideal subject (Humanist Idealism) -

POLITICAL SCIENCE NOTES 4

💡 NUDITY WAS A DISGUISE. IT WAS ANOTHER GARMENT. BUT

Episode 3 (Oil Painting)

Oil Painting - Valuable Object - Depict things that are buyable.

Objects are often seen as ‘tangible’ - signifying material possession of the

Visual of art was dominated by oil paintings in Europe in 1500-1900

Earlier paintings celebrated a static kind of presentation (mostly

Relevance of Oil paintings coming up at a certain historical

POLITICAL SCIENCE NOTES 5

2. Rise in Economic Wealth

They go hand in hand. This nexus is underscored by Berger.

Consequence of larger historical forces like colonialism,

1. Freidman - Freedom economic, not limited to individuality

2. Rawls - State should achieve freedom in the sense that

Both of the aforementioned thinkers are liberals, yet

Understanding of wealth is changing. ‘Wealth’ is ‘Power’

As students of political science, the idea of power (its

Concepts like Nation State are becoming important.

POLITICAL SCIENCE NOTES 6

💡 PAINTINGS BECOME A SIGNIFIER OF LARGER

Themes around individualism are relevant to larger

Reason oil paintings become relevant is not just because it can

Why could it not be music? - the lack of direct/ tangible possession

Oil paintings often celebrated ‘merchandise’ as their main subject -

💡 WHERE DOES THIS VALUE COME FROM?

Valuation is based on different societal perception - Religion, Caste - These

The desire and the context in which this value is emerging is

POLITICAL SCIENCE NOTES 7

How is Political classified? - It is power. What alters or affects that

💡 BIGGEST SUCCESS OF POLITICS IS TO MAKE ITSELF

History of art cannot be explained by the love of art

💡 Oil painting, before everything else, was a medium to celebrate

The reason people were getting themselves painted is because these

POLITICAL SCIENCE NOTES 8

We are surrounded by images of an alternative way of life