The final exam is scheduled for Monday, December 10, 8:30 a.m.-10:20 a.m. In the event that inclement weather or an emergency interfere with your ability to get to campus for the final exam, please call or e-mail Professor Di Stefano (543-9254) <distefan@u.washington.edu> as soon as possible to arrange for a make-up exam. If an emergency interferes with your ability to take the officially scheduled final exam, you must have acceptable documentation. In order to take the make-up exam you must contact Professor Di Stefano.

      Please bring one large-size blue or green book with you to the exam. Make sure that there are no pages missing from your blue/green book and that there is no writing in it or on the front cover. You will be expected to write your exam with a pen.

      If you would like to receive comments on your final exam, please bring a stamped and self-addressed large manila envelope with you to the final exam, and turn it in with your final. To make sure that you have the correct postage on your envelope, bring your envelope, along with your blank green or blue book, to a post office; they will weigh it and put the postage on. 

      The following questions are designed to help you prepare for the final exam. Because this is a comprehensive final exam, material from the midterm exam review may also appear on the final. You can access this document at the class website:

http://faculty.washington.edu/distefan/courses/PoliSci201/201AHome.html

Good luck!

      * * *

What are some of the key differences between the STATE OF NATURE in the political theories of ROUSSEAU, HOBBES and LOCKE? How do these differences account for important differences in each theorist's understanding of the PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT?

Some political theorists argue that THEORIES OF HUMAN NATURE do not provide a sufficiently critical guide for thinking about as-yet unrealized political possibilities. Rousseau was aware of this problem and attempted to correct for it in his state of nature. Other theorists, such as Emma Goldman, argue for a different approach to human nature. Discuss Goldman's approach to the question of human nature.

What role does the LABOR THEORY OF VALUE play in the political theory of Locke?

What is the SPOILAGE LIMITATION in Locke's political theory?

What role does CONSENT play, and how is it circumvented, in Locke's account of PROPERTY RIGHTS and MONEY? 

What does the term NATURAL LAW mean in general, and what particular definition did Locke attach to it? 

How are Hobbes’s LAWS OF NATURE different from Locke’s NATURAL LAW?

What does it mean to say that both Hobbes and Locke were CONSENT THEORISTS, even though they did not agree on all things?

What are the most important points of disagreement between HOBBES and LOCKE?

Locke's political theory leaves readers with some confusion about political LEGITIMACY, particularly as this involves notions of PRIVATE PROPERTY, CONSENT, and EQUALITY. Discuss some of the questions raised by Locke's discussion of these concepts.

What are some of the LOCKEAN aspects in the political thought of MALCOLM X?

What does Locke mean by the RIGHT TO PUNISH, and how is this idea used by Malcolm X?

What are some of the core differences between the political theories of MALCOLM X and MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., particularly as these theories address a shared concern: political legitimacy from the vantage point of disenfranchised African-Americans? How is legitimacy to be assessed and achieved, according to each theorist?

How is CRITICAL CITIZENSHIP different from ANARCHISM and POLITICAL CYNICISM?

How, specifically, does Locke's political theory create some space for CRITICAL CITIZENSHIP?

How, specifically, does Locke's political theory inhibit the prospects for CRITICAL CITIZENSHIP?

What does it mean to say that GRIMKE, THOREAU, KING, and the AUTHORS OF THE "PORT HURON STATEMENT" represent particular examples of CRITICAL CITIZENSHIP? What do they share in common?

What is the difference between asserting that citizens have the RIGHT to rebel and asserting that they have an OBLIGATION to rebel? Discuss this contrast with the help of Locke and one or more of the critical citizenship theorists.

Imagine that you are a member of the University of Washington chapter of Students for a Democratic Society and that you have been commissioned to draw up a preliminary draft of students' political concerns in the year 2007. What would these political concerns be and how would they compare and contrast with those of the "Port Huron Statement," written nearly 40 years ago?

Theories of CRITICAL CITIZENSHIP alert us to the fact that citizens may often disagree, quite radically, about basic moral and political principles. While critical citizens reserve the right and obligation to disobey political authorities, those of the HOBBESIAN PERSUASION argue that disagreement about basic moral and political principles is dangerous and should not be tolerated by political authorities. What do you think?

According to Corey Robin, the author of "Fear," Hobbes believed that fear could serve to unite citizens who might otherwise disagree about moral and political principles. Furthermore, Robin suggests that the Hobbesian fear of death is manifested in the behavior of Americans who adopt a posture of "quiet complacence and sober regard for family, business, locality, and self." In other words, Robin suggests that Hobbes’s ideas have had a prophetic influence on contemporary political life. How would you assess this claim? What is the link between "sober regard for family, business, locality, and self" and Hobbesian fear, according to Robin?

To what extent do Americans today live in an environment of fear? How has this impacted our collective understanding of "political legitimacy?" Which political theorists do you find most useful for addressing the topic of "political legitimacy in an age of fear" and why? 

Which theorist in this course CHALLENGED your beliefs about politics the most?

Who is the theorist with which you most strenuously DISAGREE, and why?

Who is the theorist with which you tend to AGREE, and why?

Some people argue that LEGITIMACY is an irrelevant concept for the analysis of contemporary politics. What do you think, and why?