Political Theory and a History of Political Thought - Assignment Example

Critical Reading and Reflect Key Concepts Name Institution Instructors Name Date 1. Explain Michael Freeden’s view that political theory is more than a history of political thought. Freeden can to understand the concept of political theory as being an inclusive concept of promoting nationalism, this is made of several assumptions and standards which allows for the term political theory to be given a meaning on the fact that the theory should be examined (Freeden, 2005). For this reason Michael Freeden logically laid out various key elements of the core structure of nationalism in his political theory which in turn assists in constructing ideas that argue about and deliberate on the ideology and its application. One of the most common part is the fact that political theory laid its basis on the prioritisation of a particular group – the nation – as a key constituting and identifying framework for human beings and their practices (Ryan, 1995). This was followed by what was known as a positive valorisation is assigned to one's own nation, granting it specific claims over the conduct of its members. There was also another third fact that laid with political theory, this was the desire to give politico-institutional expression to the first two core concepts”. Fourthly, “the space and time are considered to be crucial determinants of social identity” and lastly, “‘a sense of belonging and membership in which sentiment and emotion play an important role” (2005). According to Freedan (2005) ‘The challenge for political theorists, then, is to distinguish an area they wish to term the ‘political’ and then to develop strategies that enable them to address directly issues of political thought’. Taking a critical look at the first element of nationalism, notice that nation in this context does not need any particular format to be clearly expressed because it might be envisaged as an entity of the same kind or with different and diverse ethnic, religious, or political backgrounds. Yet, regardless of this imagination, the state of being a nation will always inhibit other modes of categorising the humanity of a particular nation. In light of the above, recognizing that liberal nationalism adopts the existence of entities with the sources of identity and illiberal nationalism incorporates other areas under nationality, therefore in a similar way, the outcome of these nationalist classifications may either be affected equally or given support, the possible ways of assigning political ‘community’ in different categories will be reached. In the Functional aspect of this classification, people often identify with functional rather than territorial groups. This was why Dallmayr, applied his awareness of this belief in the sense that he made a request for workers all over to become unified against the unfair conditions they shared, irrespective of their nationalities (Pogge, 2002). While the second method is focused on religion which ascertains and sets off loyalties that hardly lean on territorial location or boundaries. In many cases a factor of time and uncontrollable conditions can dramatically change religion as well as gender and class. The third method revolves around regionally and globally. Having looked at the first key element of the core structure of nationalism, let us examine the second element which explains a nation that identifies with a pluralistic community where members with different ethnic, religious, or political backgrounds exist has slim chances to establish or make certain broad principles or rules centred on its expectations on the behavioural attributes of its members. 2. It has been argued that ‘[t]he fear that modern liberalism is inimical to the spirit of classical liberalism and will in practice threaten the latter’s gains, rests on two things.’ What are these two things? Liberalism is a term that is used in politics mostly formulated by people from the west. However most critics claim that liberalists do not usually portray the term in action as they do not in their own way protect liberalism for which they talk about so much (Mises, 2012). Most of the time act of Liberalism, has vested its meaning in its name is form of political ideology whose main concern is to protect and enhance the liberty of individuals. Liberalism has also been used so much as a political doctrine and it most of the time did not just come from the classical politics of the world until the early 19th century (Lersurdo & Elliot, 2013). To add on this, the thoughts that are attached to the term of liberalism include personal thoughts and values which have been made into philosophies through the pass of time and other social changes of the sixteenth century, as a matter of fact the act and practice of liberalism was invented back during the times of ancient Greece and Rome even though some distinctions have become the main elements.. Liberalism in the modern work would be depicted in various ways, these are mostly referred to as being the elements of liberalism, first of all is that liberalism will contain some act of individualism, this is because, most people view liberalism as an element that reflects highly on the thought that people are first of all individuals and then they become a community thereafter (Rawls, 2005). Therefore, liberals aim at constructing a society in which individuals are provided the freedom to pursue his or her own good or happiness. The other element of liberalism is known as equality or egalitarian. In this way, most liberals live with the belief that every person is born equal and have the legal and political liberty to do as one feels. However, as times go by people develop different character traits of which they eventually become devoted to provide equal opportunities for everyone to realize their uneven potential. The other element in liberalism is known as universalism, in this element, it is believed that the human process presents a unified form of morality. The fourth element of liberalism is known as meliorism which implies that there is a reason for human beings to exist among one another. By way of reasoning them, people can be able to make wise and informed decisions in order resolve disputes by the means of debate and discussion. In this way, the society, which is the collection of individuals and its construction are generally progressing. On this premise, liberals believe that people should be offered enough toleration in order to pursue their own interests. It is under this circumstance that the balance and progress of a society can be achieved. The philosophical justification of classical liberalism is supplemented by utilitarianism. In fact the main reason for liberalism lays on the need for human beings to find happiness in the things that they do. 3. Why does Kevin Rudd argue that neoliberalism is an ‘emperor with no clothes’? Neoliberalism is a form of liberalism that refers to the political status of the classic nations (Harvey, 2007). In this Kevin Rudd argues that neoliberalism based its strengths on economic development where people were controlled by a few privileged individuals and there was no exercise of rights for individuals, nor was there an act of equality in liberty (Rudd, 2009). According to Kevin Rudd, Neoliberals hold that intervention, whether with a good intention or not, would have negative effects. One of the best solutions will be found in attaining personal help, personal responsibility and the fight to empower oneself economically. This type of neoliberalism was also practiced by Margaret thatcher who asserted that “there is no such thing as society, only individuals and their families” (Harvey, 2007). One of the ways that neoliberalism was to be practices would include the act of being able to maintain domestic order with organizations such as police force. Secondly, it should enforce contracts or agreements between citizens, which means the function of judiciary. This is quite different from the old times where liberalism was seen as a way of fighting the political regime of the day in the past. In this way liberalism actually inspired the creation of a unified and independent, constitutional states which based on representative principles and the rule of law (Gray, 2002). However when we look at the modern liberalism we find that it grew soon after the world war period, this is when everything changed, all the way from industries, to the dignity of individuals. All these had to be restructured a new. Liberalism now was seen in things such as community welfare programs which were further taken to the western world that include the social insurance, pension schemes and other forms of making people feel comfortable in their own backyard. Conversely, a nation that identifies with a uniform type of homogenous culture has the tendency to control its members. While valorisation in this context includes all spheres of “loyalty demands” and “superiority claims” (Harvey, 2007) there is no definite vital link between racism and nationalism. And even though this statement clearly connected with the former parliamentary government of Europe, for instance, the victory of National Front Fascist, Jean-Marie Le Pen in becoming one of the final two candidates to settle a tied election by running for the French presidency in 2002, the reverse was the case for liberal classes of nationalism belonging to the era of colonies becoming independent from the country that used to control them (Savage, 2006).  Apparently, Waters promotes the importance of understanding new theories of social inequality, which are more comprehensive than class-based theories. In order for people to achieve the goal of liberalism, then it calls for a representative of the government to uphold liberty at all times. Neoliberalism is thus important as it will lead us to the direction that we are supposed to undertake in order for us to reach an atmosphere of nationalism and political independence of all individuals regardless of race, religion or economic status (Harvey, 2007). 4. Is Fred Dallmayr concerned with inequality in political power or inequality in wealth? Fred Dallmayr was political theorist who worked so much on the areas of exploring inequality in the societies. According to his theories, inequality in economic power was inevitable. His concern was so much on economic power. According to the philosopher, growth in economic power will only create more inequality in the society. This is because, those countries or societies that have strength through acquisition of so much wealth will be able to influence the decisions of a government and also by the same ways, will be able to take advantage of or exploit those who only have their labour as a means of subsistence (Damaryll, 2010). According to Dallmayr (2002), the sources of conflicts arise from the differences in the political power. This is also evidenced in the international arena of disparities in political power and the notion of “The West versus the Rest.” Shows how the west is regarded to be more powerful as compared to other civilizations as it dominates political and issues pertaining security internationally. However, Dallmayr (2002) acknowledges that inequality of power colludes with other inequalities like those of wealth or affluence. The wealthy are wealthy because they exploit the needy. Dallmayr (2002) observes that major economic development in an organisation comes by because some people have the tendency of exploiting others who are weaker than them. This unfair transaction takes place because of the unequal distribution of income or means of production which implies that only those who own the means of production benefit from wealth creation and the free enterprise. On the other hand, those who are poor do not have a choice but to work for or sell their labour to the owners of production (Freeden, 2005). This line of thought also states that capitalism’s productive value is hampered by an overwhelming interest in profit. According to Dalmayr ( 2010) the challenge of fighting off control of the society by use of wealth layed on the retionship that the society creates among the rich and the poor class. There should be a need to look more in to the question of inequality in order to determine the social relationships that we can form This means that when we look at the issue of wealth, Dallmayrian approach is integral to the study of income inequality, for it explains the basic relationship between production and distribution. According to Fred and colleagues (Grasso et al., 2012), the most definite aspect of Dallmayr’s idea for breaking up the connection between production and distribution within capitalist society is to abolish the alienating and oppressive division of labour and build an economic system that creates multiple sources of income and promotes equal distribution of wealth (Gray, 2002). According to Dallmayr (2010) division of people and status of the society is usually related to the economic status, which this regard, we will find that people with the greatest control over economic resources are placed at the highest level of the status hierarchy. But status is not exclusively associated with economic position. There are people who are given high status in the society even though they do not have control over a huge amount of economic resources. Power, on the other hand, is the political component of social inequality. It is defined by Weber as the ability to control others. Again, people who own sizeable amount of economic resources have greater power. Powerful people also are more capable of manipulating social processes. For instance, an employer charged of corporate felony can evade punishment by hiring expert lawyers Weber had a more comprehensive model of social inequality because he takes into consideration the relationship between political, social, and economic components of inequality. In this regard we can consciously say that Dallmayr was so much concerned with the inequality in wealth as it played a great part in the kind of the society that was raised in the past and even to the present time. With wealth people are able to influence the economic development of the country, they are also able to control the political class. A person chosen as a political figure will also be influence by the opinions of the wealth as they are the ones who fund their campaigns. (Lersurdo & Elliot, 2013), (Pogge, 2002). Sources Damaryll, F., 2010. Integral Pluralism: Beyond Culture Wars. The University Press of Kentucky; 1 edition. Freeden, M., 2005. What Should the 'Political' in political theory explore?'. The Journal of Political Philosophy, pp.pp. 113-134. Grasso, K.L. et al., 2012. Theology and Public Philosophy: Four Conversations. Lexington Books. Gray, J., 2002. Two Faces of Liberalism. New Press, The. Harvey, D., 2007. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford University Press; 1st, First Edition edition. Lersurdo, D. & Elliot, G., 2013. Liberalism: A Counter-History. Verso. Mises, L.V., 2012. Liberalism. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. Pogge, T.W., 2002. World Poverty and Human Rights; Cosmopolitan responsibilities and reforms. Cambridge Polity Press. Rawls, J., 2005. Political Liberalism: Expanded Edition (Columbia Classics in Philosophy). Columbia University Press; 2nd edition. Rudd, K., 2009. The Global Financial Crisis. The Monthly 42, pp.pp. 20-29. Ryan, A., 1995. 'Liberalism', in R.E Goodin and P. Pettit(eds). In A companion to contemporary Political Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell. pp.pp. 291-311. Savage, M., 2006. Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder: Savage Solutions. Thomas Nelson. Read More