Browsing by Subject "political theory"
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Political Science in Late Medieval Europe: The Aristotelian Paradigm and How It Shaped the Study of Politics in the West(2011-10-21) Sullivan, Mary ElizabethThis dissertation looks at Aristotelian political thinkers of the later Middle Ages and argues that they meet all of the criteria of a mature Kuhnian science. Scholars of medieval Europe have spent decades arguing over exactly how one should define medieval Aristotelianism and which thinkers qualify as Aristotelian. I answer this question by turning to the philosophy of science literature. By using the criteria laid out by Thomas Kuhn- a common education, a shared technical language and general agreement on problem choice- I am able to parse out a group of political thinkers who qualify as a scientific community. My dissertation then goes on to illustrate how several different medieval thinkers were able to operate within this Aristotelian paradigm. This project gives scholars of the Middle Ages a more useful lens through which to view the phenomenon of medieval Aristotelianism. For those interested in political science more broadly, I demonstrate that our field has, in fact, experienced a period of maturity, in which scholars shared a unified paradigm and proceeded with their research in concert. I also show some of the benefits and limitations of a common research agenda in the study of politics.Item Religion as a Special Category in Law and Policy: Religious Exemptions and First Freedoms(2013-09-13) Goodine, Bradley WayneAdvocates of religious exemptions and religious priority often stake their case on the belief that religion occupies a special political category discrete from other ethical frameworks. Yet there remains a significant gap in the literature regarding the conceptual status of religion among moral systems within a liberal democratic state. Surprisingly, little work has been done in justifying why religion, as opposed to other ethical frameworks, should be seen as distinctive or prioritized. What is it about religion that would demand this level of protection? What conception of religion are we to use when thinking about how to order society? What, if anything, makes religion different from a legal perspective? Although many scholars have addressed related issues, most contributions have glossed over the logically prior question of how we are to understand religion theoretically. On the other hand, those who deny religious distinctiveness and priority have done little to systematically justify their dismissal. In order to fill this gap, I extract both from politics and from academic literature on liberal democratic theory the assumptions that underlie these debates, focusing on theoretical accounts of what exactly religion is from a political perspective. I find that there are insufficient grounds for demanding categorically distinctive or priority treatment for religion on the level of politics. Arguments for such treatment are often circular and fail to accomplish their original aim of justifying why one subset of the population merits privilege. I do not argue that ethical exemptions themselves are always inappropriate but rather that religious believers cannot be granted such exemptions to the absolute exclusion of nonreligious citizens. In examining public rhetoric and constitutional history of the United States, I show that the priority placed on religion often results from a misunderstanding of the relationships between religious liberty and both national history and contemporary political practice. Finally, undertaking a case study from contemporary liberal theory, I show that there are other theoretical resources for defending religion without resorting to an arbitrary category.Item The Rhetoric of Conflict in Political Theory(2014-01-14) Brown, Ted HThe language surrounding the decision to go to war in American political discourse is often very divisive and draws upon numerous rhetorical traditions. Early research on the question of what types of arguments favoring war has been largely inconclusive. Alongside the facts concerning conflict are numerous orators drawing upon various discourses and intellectual traditions seeking to sway their audience either toward or away from conflict. One such study is the work of James Andrews who conducted case studies to develop an ?American adolescence? theory suggesting that arguments of honor and principle were the most persuasive in convincing men to take up arms. This research, however, fails to convincingly answer this question. In this dissertation, I use a rhetorical framework to investigate the types of arguments used in early-American history that try to influence the decision to go to war. Primarily, this dissertation examines Andrews? theory of principled arguments and employs a second variable, that is, arguments of expediency. I argue that principled arguments are not as successful as Andrews concludes and instead arguments of expediency are more commonplace than arguments of principle. Additionally, I argue that expedient rhetoric is a necessary component for mobilizing mass support for a war but expedient rhetoric is not necessary when arguing for inaction. Rather, principled arguments can also serve to motivate audiences toward inaction. To examine whether Andrews? theory of principled arguments is largely correct, I first demonstrate that Machiavelli used arguments of expediency in an attempt to convince the Medici to go to war. From this example, I conduct three case studies where arguments of principle and arguments of expediency are both present. I find that in arguments prior to the American Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Mexican-American War are largely a mixed bag. In the American Revolution and the War of 1812, arguments of expediency are often capable in convincing men to take up arms. However, I demonstrate that in the Mexican-American War, arguments of principle may help to limit the severity of conflict.