Political Theory: The Classic Texts and Their Continuing Relevance

I recently completed the course offered by the Modern Scholar on Political Theory. Like all offerings by Recorded Books, this course comprised seven CDs each with two approximately 30-minute lectures for a total of 7 hours of lecture time. Despite being a bit more formulaic than its rival The Great Courses, selections from the Modern Scholar bookshelf are always dense with information and efficient in its delivery. This course on political theory was no exception.

The instructor was Professor Joshua Kaplan, who earned his master’s in the subject at the University of Chicago and his doctorate at UC-Santa Cruz. He has taught political theory to students at the University of Notre Dame since 1987. Professor Kaplan is well spoken with an even diction and articulates in the way only an expert in the field could possibly be.

Dr. Kaplan describes political theory as “slow food in a fast food world.” We crave simple, easy answers but often analysis is highly complex. In general, political theory does not dictate a set of actions or behaviors that lead to statistically probable outcomes. Instead, it gives us perspective, helps us think about the issues, and gives us the ability “to act with purpose and vision.”

To enlighten the student with a survey of thought across the nations, kingdoms, and states and the times in which they held sway, the professor surveys a number of essential classical texts. The first text he recommends, highly recommends I might add, is an essay by George Orwell titled, “Politics and the English Language.” While he does refer to this text, I regrettably did not complete this reading during the course due to constraints imposed by other obligations. I am so fond of Orwell that after I do read the piece I might post an entry examining it by itself, or in retrospect to the completed course. Another recommendation, which I have previously read several times, is Oedipus the King by the Greek tragedian Sophocles.

An important early point that Dr. Kaplan makes is that “The first thing to understand about political theory is that it is not a collection of doctrines or assertions about politics, but rather a way of understanding the significance of political events.” This is important to keep in mind during the seven hour lecture series. There are as many ways of looking at politics as there are politicians—or at least it seems that way often times.

I found this course somewhat nostalgic as the bulk of texts and material was contained within my wide-ranging and near useless (only joking, folks!) undergraduate education in the liberal arts. After a brief recounting of how horrible was poor Oedipus’s life the professor moves on to less morbid Greeks. (Yes, according to my doctoral education that is the correct way to render the possessive of a singular proper noun ending in the letter “s.” I do believe it is a sad comment on the English language, myself, but pick up a copy of The Elements of Style by Strunk and White and please prove me wrong. I’ll enjoy it!)

Plato begins the discussion proper—and doesn’t he always? I must admit, I was very glad that I paid attention during my Introduction to Philosophy course way back in 1995. Those Greek gentlemen, particularly Plato and Aristotle, have oriented me time and again. You know, an annoying party trick just might be to wait until the discussion turns political (or philosophical, or scientific, artistic, etc.—just wait until you are in need of a refill) and then with a surreptitious interjection, and in your most refined voice proclaim, “Well you know, it all goes back to Plato’s Republic…” Coincidentally, that is the path of the course in Lectures 2 and 3; let us remember the lesson of that great text—that justice is within ourselves. Then, we move on—still in ancient Greece, however, we now consider the historian Thucydides who chronicled the Peloponnesian War. Rather than review the tangled web of that conflict, let us simply say that Thucydides considered himself a realist, espousing something along the lines of, “might makes right.”

Next, Dr. Kaplan reviews Aristotle’s Politics, which (I think rather naively) holds that the citizen is in partnership with all other citizens—kind of like a team—in which the good of the polis is superior to what’s good for any individual. Next, the course considers Machiavelli’s The Prince which essentially asserts that it is often beneficial to the ruler and the state to behave like Richard Nixon when necessary and when power is at stake. (For a good crash course in Machiavellian politics taken to the extreme for drama’s sake, check out the thrilling Netflix show House of Cards which is based on a British TV show of the same name but it suffers from the absence of Kevin Spacey and Robin Wright.

Now, we move on to the idea of a social contract theory, first espoused in Leviathan by essentially the father of modern political science, Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes’s thinking was foundational in what we now know as Western political thought. He introduced such revolutionary and dangerous ideas such as the “equality of all men” (apologies to the better half of the species, as we now know that all men are created equal and all are equally inferior to women), and representative government.

Another seminal social contract theorist was Jean-Jacques Rousseau who had a pretty rough up-bringing. Rousseau was a truly revolutionary thinker whose concepts about the right to private property and the nature of human beings had a bit of influence in starting the French Revolution. He was also somehow influential on Cambodian madman Pol Pot, a genocidal maniac who surely must have severely misread some of Rousseau.

From social contract theory, Dr. Kaplan considers the revolutionary ideas espoused anonymously in The Federalist Papers. This is another area in which my undergraduate education provided a bit of background as I did my senior thesis on “The Political Philosophy of James Madison.” I won’t digress much at present but there is both an elitist as well as a careful protectiveness of the nascent republic throughout Madison’s thought. It might do many Americans much good to undertake a quick review of at least some of Madison’s careful thought.

Two of the most fascinating lectures in the entire series are given on the penultimate disc. Both concern Alexis de Tocqueville and his work Democracy in America. Despite its concern with American democracy, de Tocqueville’s audience was in France. His book was very generous toward the US and thus it became popular and made him something of a celebrity. Essentially, de Tocqueville described America in usually glowing terms in an attempt to reassure the French that a fading aristocracy and societal equality would not threaten utter ruin: Just look at the United States!

Next, Professor Kaplan turned his discussion to the always-controversial Karl Marx. Yet, he prefaced his lecture with one of the most brilliant caveats I have ever heard given regarding Marx. Kaplan said, “Karl Marx is one of the most difficult political theorists for us to read and

understand. One problem is that we feel compelled to take sides when we read Marx, to reject him or to convert to Marxist. We don’t run into this problem when we read Aristotle, for example, but it is hard for us to accept the idea that we can simply learn from Marx without signing up or rejecting him out of hand.” I could not agree more—and it makes me feel much better about the months-long experience of reading all 140 lbs of Das Kapital when I was studying macroeconomic theory for pre-dissertation research several years ago. (Don’t worry, I was a Keynesian from the start! But I still had to wade through the entirety of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations as well as John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty. Well, back to Marx, while communism was a stark over-reach, Marx’s criticisms of exploitation by the owners of the means of production against laborers were spot-on.

Dr. Kaplan closes the lecture series with a discussion of game theory, the predominant mode of political analysis during the 20^th century. Classic examples of non-cooperation such as the “Problem of the Commons” or the “Prisoner’s dilemma” gave mathematic-minded analysts insight into rational choice behavior. It also might have contributed to the absurd levels of the nuclear arms race. However, all in all, game theory proved to be a very useful tool for providing insight into human decision making.

I would definitely recommend this course to anyone who has the opportunity to listen. It seems more like a history course than a theory course but that is primarily due to the survey nature. It does help if you, like me, have some familiarity with most of the theorists and their works prior to the discussion. I think you would enjoy it just as much if you lacked such knowledge but you would find yourself checking Wikipedia quite often to deepen your understanding of certain theoretical perspectives, timeframes, and personalities. A very enjoyable course from a knowledgeable professor! Happy learning!