POG 430: Reading Journals

Ajay Athwal
500349442
Professor Mooers
Ryerson University
April 10, 2014

Journal 1 Sheldon Wolin, Political Theory as a Vocation. Pp. 55-62.

Wolins piece looks at political science from a purely vocational perspective and
evaluates whether it can be treated as an exact science, discussed in terms of the
methodist in relation to the theorist. He advocates that in our modern Western
societies, our state has created systems and we teach theories that revolve around these
systems. From this we can attempt to teach politics to students in a scientific way in
which there are determinate methods. Wolin instead argues that politics cannot be taught
in this way as an understanding of politics is ongoing and never static. Knowing about
history of political ideologies and institutions is important to understand the progression
and resultant state of politics today. It is also important to always look at situations within
their specific context when making political assessments. The aim of politics itself is not
to create a systematic method to look at the world, but to help be a guide that
deconstructs and constructs the world to better understand politics and societies.
Wolin touches an important topic that everyone studying politics must ensure they
think about when approaching political science. It is very important to understand that
while it is called political science, in fact it should be better understood in a different
way, which Wolin describes as political wisdom. (Wolin, pg 56) Instead of being
information that is testable and empirical, politics must be instructive and enlightening in
a way to help understand and make sense of the world looking at the applicability of
political theories in real world situations. This topic is very relevant as it is important for
current and future political scientists to ensure they keep an open mind of what politics
is about and understand it is an ongoing dialogue that is and will continue to be eternally
revealing as we continue to learn how societies function throughout the world.

Journal 2 Richard Rorty, extract from Human Rights, Rationality, and Sentimentality,
On Human Rights: Oxford Amnesty Lectures 1993. Pp. 132-137.
Rorty discusses how over time, it has been difficult defining our fundamental
human nature and we should accept that our human nature is flexible and changing. He
discusses how we live in a human rights culture in the sense that our current post-war
society has learned the value of human rights through historical events. (Rorty, pg 132)
By making this statement, it is also claimed that our perception of having the universal
entitlement to fundamental human rights is not something all humans inherently deserve,
but this perception is a way of thinking that has developed over time and been informed
by our histories and our context. He believes our moral barometer is not fixed and has
changed over time, and therefore a fundamental human right is fundamental due to the
history and context that has led it to be valued. He discusses how history has proven false
the idea that humans are rational beings and that appealing to ones morals will result in
morally good behavior. Instead he believes that appealing to ones sense of empathy and
sentiment is a more effective way to influence human behavior.
Overall, while Rortys piece does not make a very explicit argument for the
effectiveness of targeting sentiments to construct the idea of human rights, he does
manage to reference a very important issue that many political scientists often ignore in
the form of understanding the non-universality of morality. It is important in politics to
not have a fixed set of morals, but instead to try to view every situation within its context
and use knowledge we have gained from our experiences throughout history. This is
because no one has any special knowledge to make a definitive claim of what is morally
right or wrong. If we claim to have a definitive scale of morality, there is a high risk of
future human rights violations due to our static idea of what is right.

Journal 3 John Rawls, extract from Political Liberalism pp. 138-139.

In Rawls piece regarding political philosophy and abstraction, he discusses how
many of the intellectual conflicts that arise in the sphere of politics must be dealt with by
abstraction to help facilitate the dialogue. He explains how ideas in political philosophy
are theories and ideologies that are not independent of the world, but rather political
philosophies are drawn from experiences in the world and society. He goes on to explain
how political philosophies do not force a way of thinking onto us, but rather if we feel
conviction from a philosophy it is because the philosophy has been effective in
explaining society. He purports then that abstraction is required when differences in
thinking are too great for an idea, theory or concept to be properly analyzed. It is then
important to abstract the ideas to understand the roots and basis upon which these ideas
are perceived. His main idea in the end is that in order for a ideal understanding of the
workings of society, we need abstraction to better determine the core elements of our
ideas in order to get a consensus on what these ideas mean and to act on these ideas
accordingly as a society.
Overall, Rawls piece brings up an important issue in making progress in our
political ideas. He states how we can only make strides in society in areas such as justice
for example, if we deconstruct what justice means and we reach a consensus so we can be
clear on what the issues are and what can be done. This is an important element to
understand in society because when people debate an idea in politics, it is important they
have a similar understanding of what the idea is in order to best understand each partys
analysis of the idea.

Journal 4 Roger Scruton, extract from The Meaning of Conservatism. Pp. 187-197.
Scrutons piece discusses conservatism in contrast to liberalism. He begins by
defining liberalism as the leading view in the Western world revolving around respect for
individual freedoms and individual rights creating a system that has been taught to
imply a kind of egalitarianism. (Scruton, pg 187) He discusses how the core concept of
freedom and autonomy in liberalism can often be contradictory in the sense that ultimate
freedom of one individual may cause conflict in ensuring freedom for all. Scruton puts
forth the idea of conservatism as the compromise between ultimate freedom and a body
of order to ensure the greater good of society. Scruton explains how the individualistic
view of liberalism can be aligned to a first person perspective on life and sometimes a
third person perspective is required to be fully enlightened. Scruton believes the
institutions, which remain strong under conservatism, help to foster and protect the liberal
notion of freedom in society.
Overall, Scruton offers an interesting idea, but one that can be found in many
pieces of liberal critique. Scruton provides an important perspective to view the liberalconservative relationship by applying the idea of perspective in understanding freedom.
By explaining how the perspective of an action plays a major role in the quality of an
action, Scrutons piece helps to show that an outside agent can be important to help
determine with the quality of choice and therefore, conservatism can provide safeguards
in the form of conservative ideas to the liberalistic values at the core of society.

Journal 5 Anne Philips, extract from Which Equalities Matter. Pp. 321-327.
Anne Phillips piece discusses the issue of equality between men and women from
a more alternative view than usually seen. The main argument is that the states
recognition of men and women as being equal with no differences is creating inequality;
it is stated, This very indifference is part of the problem. (Phillips, pg 322) Her
argument is centered on the fact that women cannot be seen as the same as men because
they are not the same as men. The differences must be acknowledged in order for women
to get the appropriate treatment they require in society. She puts up various arguments for
this including the fact that the under-representation of women in politics and business
cannot be accounted for if men and women are viewed without difference. In addition the
special needs of women (eg. efforts in child rearing) often requires special considerations.
In general when it comes to economic and financial matters, it is important to view
individuals without difference, but in all other matters especially political, the difference
is imperative to the individuality of the peoples and cultures existence in society.
This piece on the issues of equality echoes a very important thought in modern
discourse on difference politics. In the past it was thought that ignoring all differences
so that everyone in society was viewed the same was the best method to tackle
discrimination. Phillips overtly explains how these differences can often be important in
the lives of individuals and therefore the differences must all be recognized in order for
everyone to function harmoniously in society. Phillips makes the important point
regarding the link between material conditions and the social position of one in society
and how that piece of economic difference cannot be ignored in trying to ensure everyone
has a good experience of life in society.

Journal 6 Iris Marion Young, Political and Group Difference. Pp. 334-343.
Similarly to other feminist thinkers like Anne Phillips, Young also discusses the
issues with a universal view on citizenship in society. She believes that the view that all
are equal in the political realm, regardless of perceived differences, does not work in
actuality. She discusses how generality has led to marginalized groups like women to be
often excluded as a view of a homogenous society assumes everyone has the same
experiences. It is shown even from early days citizenship was meant to be exclusionary
and it is a recent progressive idea that citizenship should stretch to invite inclusion.
(Young, pg 336) The main point is that our society is a group-differentiated society and
this is a fact we should not ignore, but one we must recognize and give attention to when
we analyze society and the political realm.
Young provides an important look on the issues in difference, especially in
regards to women, because she looks at it from a practical standpoint. Not only does
Young theorize to what she believes is the issue in society (not acknowledging the
differences), but she also envisions realistic ways to help the situation. She looks at ideas
such as special rights and affirmative action plans for the ways they can help and for the
ways in which they fail. Overall, this piece is important because it explicitly outlines the
need for disadvantage in society to be accounted for and targeted head on through
policies to help provide the special treatment that certain groups of society need.

Journal 7 Michael Sandel, The Procedural Republic and the Unencumbered Self,
Political Theory. Pp. 258-270.
Sandel looks our current form of liberalism that permeates the Western world and
analyzes its role in the political society. One of the main views he takes on is the view of
the right vs the good. He proposes that our liberalistic societies, above-all, value the
actual right of freedom to choose how to live ones life over whether the manner in which
people live their lives actually contributes good to the greater society. Sandel explains
how this type of system that values the individual and liberty is possible in a society that
has resulted in us living as unencumbered selves. This self is recognized as, a self
understood as prior to and independent of purposes and ends. (Sandel, pg 262) This idea
of an unencumbered self means one who is able to do what they choose. Therefore, as we
have become more fragmented, in turn our consensus on the importance of engaging in
political affairs has fragmented.
Sandels idea of the unencumbered self is an important concept as it relates to
many similar arguments in terms of understanding liberalism. The right of liberty is often
best understood when looking at the liberalistic depiction of it examined by Sandel in the
form of the capacity to do anything. Sandels idea revolves around justice as the only
bearer of morality and that it would be difficult to value the good over the right because if
one places a value on what is good, it automatically takes away the right as individuals
cannot choose the good freely, but are forced to only choose the good, irrespective of
whether it is the correct decision or not. Therefore he makes a compelling, but difficult
case for objective justice to be the only measure of morality in our right to liberty and the
issues this raises.

Journal 8 Will Kymlicka, extract from Multicultural Citizenship. Pp. 496-508.

Kymlickas piece looks at liberalism and how it can coincide with
multiculturalism. Issues revolving around multiculturalism have permeated society and it
is often debated whether the communitarian aspects of multiculturalism can coexist with
our liberalistic society. Kymlicka takes a different perspective and claims that the
ultimate liberal notion of freedom can only be achieved with access to cultural
membership in society. He puts forth that being part of a culture in society helps expose
one to possible options in life. Having a society with access to multiple cultures and the
ability to take part and transition to and between cultures allows one to truly have
individualistic freedom in society. He also mentions that the modernization of society and
resultant homogeneity found across different cultures has not diminished the desire for
cultural groups to remain distinct and that the need to have cultural membership in some
form is paramount for the individual on a personal basis and on a societal basis.
This view on the important of cultural membership is important as it debuffs the
idea that individualism and communitarism are dichotomous. It shows how both
individual and community values in society when combined allow for the maximization
of freedom in society. This piece shows how ultimate individual freedom must be
understood within the context of society and how human nature works. Immigration and
resultant multicultural societies show us through settlement behavior that the need for
access to cultural membership is paramount in many reasons, including elements as
fundamental as belonging. Therefore it is important to value membership to cultures in
society when we are trying to uphold the element of liberty in our liberalistic societies.

Journal 9 Bhikhu Parekh, extract from Rethinking Multiculturalism. Pp. 514-522.

Parekh looks at idea of cultural diversity and its importance to society. Parekh
holds a view that supports cultural diverse societies for all of the positive externalities
they create. He stresses the importance of being able to take part in ones unique culture
regardless of the culture. He also looks at it from the practical progressive standpoint that
having multiple cultures and perceptions on life will facilitate a more varied discussions
when society engages in dialogue in any capacity, for example in the political sphere. In
addition, when we see multiple cultures we can look at difference and have a more varied
and comprehensive sense of morality. He goes on to discuss when cultural diversity has
caused problems such as with secular policies, but explains that this is simply the perfect
example to illustrate how we must be more sensitive to our cultural diverse societies
while acknowledging and respecting their differences.
Overall Parekh makes a strong case for cultural diversity. However, while all of
the points for cultural diversity Parekh make are strong and quite clear, that may itself be
the downfall of this article. Overall it is difficult to find much contention in the ideas that
Parekh puts forward. He does make the important effort to show how cultural diversity
can create issues, but simply offers the solution of a objective understanding of equality
instilled into society to solve these conflicts between cultures. This can raise issues in that
it is difficult for society to agree on what is equal when evaluating different cultures
because difference is difficult to equivocate across cultures. Therefore, while it is
important to take note of the benefits cultural diversity creates, it is also important to
understand how significant an impact cultural diversity has on societies at the most
fundamental level and be alert to the possible issues that can arise in the future.

Journal 10 Chandra Talpade Mohanty, extract from Woman Workers and Capitalist
Scripts, M, Jacqui Alexander and Chandra Talpade Mohanty (eds.) Feminist
Geneologies, Colonial Legacies, Democratic Futures. Pp. 581-588.
Mohanty looks at the push for solidarity across the globe for women workers.
Mohanty discusses how women workers, particularly in 3rd world countries have been
exploited heavily. She discusses how the direness of the situation makes it difficult to
envision a significant change happening in the future. Mohanty links the problems to our
global capitalistic system that thrives on exploitation of the marginalized. She advocates
for people across societies to engage in solidarity in recognition of a mutual struggle. It is
stated that it is an issue about, a process of gender and race domination. (Mohanty, pg
585) The main point being made is that while the experience of marginalized classes like
women around the world to differ, the 3rd world women workers all do tend to have a
similar experience of domination and exploitation around the world. It is because of this
congruence that the global community should bring attention to this issue because it
permeates so many societies of women workers across the globe.
This piece does well to bring up a highly marginalized group that, like most
marginalized groups, continues to be overlooked. Much of the discussion of this issue
looks to global capitalism as the proponent of this situation for women around the world.
However, this system of global capitalism is not explored deeply to source the root of the
issue and determine whether this system needs to be fixed or be replaced. Therefore,
while the issues being brought up are important, in terms of trying to analyze from a
political perspective, there is not enough relation to political ideology in explaining our
capitalistic, marginalizing world.