View current syllabus
Delivery Mode: Grouped-study Introduction | Overview of Course | Sub-Themes
Course Structure | Course Objectives | Course Materials
This course will provide a needed complement to the courses already offered on globalization in the Global Change area of specialization as well fitting in with the Cultural Studies program. It will provide a rigorous study of rationally grounded philosophical paradigms, which facilitate clarity and critical insight in conceiving and understanding the contemporary context of global capitalism. This context poses challenges to the traditional categories of political philosophy, and a careful study of them and of contemporary philosophical responses to those challenges makes possible the recognition of those categories at work in philosophical and -- perhaps even more importantly -- in non-philosophical discourses about globalization. Minimally, the ability to understand and recognize the categories of political philosophy is a necessary condition for the critical assessment of these discourses if such assessment is to be well grounded.
Furthermore, given that globalization is also largely Westernization (particularly in its modern form), an understanding of Western philosophical categories is useful -- not only for the recognition of the ideological rationalization of corporate and state practices impacting non-Western peoples, but also for perhaps recovering resources within it for its own overcoming. As Western philosophy moves into the twenty-first century, it increasingly must answer to the necessity of addressing the non-Western, whether as its Other or as its complement. This in turn necessarily entails a Janus-faced approach that looks within as well as without, and which cautiously avoids reliance upon caricature and stereotype in both directions.
This course will also fit in well with an interdisciplinary emphasis insofar as, since an understanding of philosophical categories in general allows a well grounded critical assessment of non-philosophical discourses, philosophy is always " interdisciplinary." Beyond that, however, some of the required material in Part Two of the course is drawn from the work of individuals not considered philosophers in the narrow academic sense -- e.g. political activists like Naomi Klein, sociologists like Jean Baudrillard, political scientists like Antonio Negri, and psychoanalysts like Félix Guattari. The kind of philosophical discourse that can address globalization is of necessity interdisciplinary insofar as the territories defining not only "fields" of study but even those defining the boundaries of the nation-state itself are becoming increasingly de-territorialized and shifted onto new terrain in various ways. Thus it is no accident that the philosophy of Deleuze and Guattari, for instance, has had such an impact upon the arts and political theory above and beyond the horizon of academic philosophy.
This course will thus enable the development of philosophical rigor without sacrificing breadth -- in fact, it is precisely through the development of such rigor that breadth in understanding and application will be achieved. The task of political philosophy is to conceive and understand the social/political world we inhabit in a way that is neither naïve nor just empirically descriptive (which insofar as it assumes philosophical categories in its description is again naïve so long as it does not make those categories explicit).
The potential student market will be of course those who are interested in philosophy, but also those interested in developing their understanding of the nexus of issues surrounding corporate globalization and possible alternatives and/or strategies of resistance to it. Younger "gen-Xers" will be drawn to it as well as older professionals who may teach in areas connected to the subject matter, who may have been impacted in some way by multinational trade agreements, or whose professional lives may bring them into contact with foreign companies in some capacity.
Political philosophy differs from history of political theory in that the fundamental categories in terms of which the state, the individual, freedom, etc. are conceived are critically examined. As Hegel noted, all too often those who engage in criticism do not critically reflect upon the categories employed in those critiques, assuming them to be obvious, self-evident, or unproblematic. Thus a political critique may assume a concept of freedom that is in fact put into question by the discourse being critiqued. Political philosophy attempts to avoid this naiveté by grasping the essential categories at work in various political theories and critiques, and in this way becoming as fully self-critical as we can be. As Socrates knew, critical thinking requires that we first become self-critical and thereby live the "examined life."
Any genuinely philosophical question is invariably linked to the whole range of philosophical questions. Thus to pose questions about the state is to also pose questions about human selfhood and about how we understand the meaning of human existence. This in turn necessitates that we think about the situatedness of this selfhood and meaning within history and community, which leads us to think about the polis or human collectivity as such, which in turn leads us to think about freedom and justice. Thus political philosophy is implied in any philosophical questioning and is unavoidable if we wish to understand the "political" and our place in the current global context in a way that is rationally well-grounded and self-critical.
In order to understand what might be fundamentally different about the contemporary postmodern context of global capitalism, in which the very idea of a nation has become problematic, we need to get a clear sense of some of the basic features of modern capitalism and liberal democracy as it first appeared within the context of the nation state. In order to understand the latter we need to get some sense of the ancient understanding of the way human existence belongs to human society. This understanding is revealed in Plato's Crito, and our reading of this text will allow us to appreciate the profound change that occurred in Europe around the seventeenth century ushering us into modernity. We will take the Hobbesian text to be paradigmatic of this latter change.
Equally important is the necessity to understand the kinds of critique that were aimed at modernity. This is crucial for understanding the viability and relevance of these critiques today. The first such critique to be examined is that of Rousseau, with some reference also to Hegel. The second is that of Marx, who carries critique all the way to a critique of ideas per se and thus undermines the privilege of thought in Enlightenment rationalism. And the third will be that of the post-Marxian "Critical Theory" school, which brings the Marxian critique up to date in a critical analysis of the twentieth century "culture industry" and of consumer society. Finally, we will turn to the "post-postmodern" analyses of Deleuze and Guattari and to the elaboration by Hardt and Negri of a paradigm of the collective order and democratic resistance modeled in many respects after these analyses.
In the face of the appeal to the liberal concept of freedom as absence of restriction on the part of multinational corporations -- an appeal made in the service of "deregulation" generally -- the Rousseauian model of participatory democracy and his concept of freedom as "obeying a law one gives to oneself" has never been more relevant. Rousseau stresses the importance of civic virtue in a healthy state, viz., that one's private will not take precedence over the general will in which one participates as a citizen. Above all, one must not place the interests of mere convenience over civic duty. But in order that this not be a form of domination (or a form of ideology in Marx's sense) one must be able to recognize the conditions of one's freedom in the general will. This necessarily entails re-thinking the meaning of freedom and, if Rousseau is right, it also means giving up the predominant model of freedom as freedom of choice.
This latter is the direction also taken by Hegel, but Rousseau's version may be less statist. Hegel, however, provides a strong argument against the liberal conception by showing that it is actually self-undermining. Additionally, unlike Rousseau who eschews the formation of particular associations within the state, Hegel's account makes necessary such associations insofar as they provide a bridge between private individuals and the collective whole. Given the size of modern nation-states like Canada, such associations would seem to be essential for real democratic participation (and, given this condition, Rousseau tacitly concedes). On the other hand, Rousseau's model stresses more the immanent production of justice as opposed to a unidirectional and necessary dialectical development of freedom one finds in Hegel. Rousseau provides us with a paradigmatic model of democratic participation, and it is one we will continually have recourse to in our critique of corporate power in today's global capitalist system.
Now if Marx is right, such a change in thinking about freedom cannot be made in abstraction from a change in the economy. However, the threat that corporate power poses to democracy and the ideological legitimization of this power in terms of the liberal concept of freedom precisely directs the concept of freedom back to the economy. Apropos to the current crisis in electoral party politics, Deleuze and Guattari develop an "ontological" model that includes both hierarchical structure (the "arborescent" model) and lateral non-hierarchical movement (the "rhizomatic" model) as two heterogeneous systems overlaid one on the other or mutually penetrating in various ways. Although the effects of both are generally present, the arborescent model could be said to predominate in the modern corporate state (as well as in Western philosophy generally), and the rhizomatic model seems primary in many contemporary forms of resistance to global capitalism. We will examine the latter in Naomi Klein's account, and in forms of resistance such as "culture-jamming."
This may suggest an alternative model of citizenship and of democratic participation that takes into account both arborescent and rhizomatic processes. Such an alternative model would nicely address the two sides of the now-classic motto "think globally [arborescent] and act locally [rhizomatic]."
Without the rhizomatic dimension, civic virtue might well come to be seen as something separate from my private sphere and from the moral virtues associated with it. Furthermore, in a consumer society one may become so satiated with consumption that one comes to see civic duty as something entirely removed from one's daily existence, thus leading one to commit Rousseau's civic sin: placing convenience over civic duty. Rousseau can give us some possible reasons for the former, but it is only in twentieth-century analyses like those of Marcuse and Adorno/Horkheimer that we can get an explicit account of the latter.
The current tension in Canada between the arborescent party politics of the Left (e.g. the NDP) and the rhizomatic resistance to global capitalism that remains outside party politics, along with the decline of the former's political viability, is thus predictable. In fact, according to the analysis of Negri and Hardt hegemony in the global system is secured through rhizomatic networks, and this is in large part how they account for the dominant role of the U.S. today. But rather than merely setting one against the other and choosing sides, the writing of Deleuze/Guattari suggest the necessity (de facto if not de jure) of both arborescent and rhizomatic processes and therefore of also establishing points of contact in their mutual overlay. These points of contact, however, may not be (or perhaps even should not be) systematizable (which would mean the dominance of the arborescent model). An appropriate model of democratic participation thus would recognize heterogeneous systems and processes without hurrying to unify them in one universal representation. Representation itself is fundamentally challenged - even Rousseau's arborescent government is one of agency rather than representation.Back to top
Within the overall theme of democratic participation in the context of corporate globalization, three major sub-themes will structure the course and organize our readings. The orientation made possible by these themes in turn will suggest certain questions. Specific questions and issues will thus be raised regarding these sub-themes in each unit, and will in part form the basis for the online discussions. I have included some provisional issues and questions to be raised in the course outline below, but it is expected that others will be added to them and/or some will be replaced or modified as the semester progresses.
We will follow an increasing emphasis on immanence as we move from the ancient to the modern to the postmodern thinkers. Plato begins with a principle of justice that precedes the social contract and is transcendent with respect to it, initiating an emphasis on transcendence that has come to be recognized as "Platonism." In Hobbes we will see the idea of justice grounded immanently in the contract, but nonetheless subject to the transcendence of nature which makes the contract necessary in the first place and which underlies its development throughout. With Rousseau and Hegel the principles of both justice and freedom are established on thoroughly immanent grounds while nature no longer determines their emergence and development. Nonetheless, nature still makes itself known in various ways in these accounts, e.g. in the natural character of peoples to which Rousseau will find it necessary to have recourse. This natural character is itself seen to be something brought about or produced in the Marxian analyses, and will lead to the question as to just how far down socialization goes. Finally in the last several units we will examine the claim of radical immanence made by Deleuze and Guattari, a claim we will see taken up by Negri and Hardt in their recent analysis of the current global capitalist context.
2. Freedom Freedom is at best implicit in Plato, and one may even fairly claim that the concept is simply absent. It is certainly not the guiding paradigm for the just state. In Hobbes we will find the paradigm case of the modern liberal conception of freedom, but that conception still will not provide the basis and legitimation for the state as it will in Rousseau and Hegel, who criticize the liberal conception as inadequate and reconceive freedom as self-determination rather than as absence of restriction. When we leave Rousseau and Hegel we leave the great discourses on freedom, and we will question what part freedom plays in relation to needs in Marx's conception of a just society. Freedom as self-determination will again become explicit in Marcuse, and we will raise the Rousseauian/Hegelian critique of liberal freedom with respect to the Deleuzian/Guattarian conception of the immanent lateral systems they call "rhizomatic." Both of these sub-themes will be taken up in the third.
3. International Context This theme will receive the its greatest emphasis in the second part of the course.
The course will be divided into two main parts, each of which will take up roughly one half of the term. The first part provides a solid grounding in the categories of modern political philosophy, up to and including twentieth-century Critical Theory which is in large part aimed at criticizing and overcoming the former. The second part will concern more explicitly the part played in the contemporary global context by multinational corporations vis-à-vis nation-states with respect to the issues of freedom and legitimacy raised in the first part, contemporary analyses and strategies of resistance, and the kinds of political and philosophical categories that are appropriate.
After completing the course, the successful student will have demonstrated the ability to:
1. Clearly articulate, explain, and critically evaluate the major conceptual categories within some of the traditionally important political philosophies.
2. Recognize those categories at work in philosophical and in non-philosophical discourses about globalization and thereby to critically assess these discourses in a way that is well grounded.
3. Critically evaluate the relevance of these categories to the contemporary global context.
4. Meaningfully raise intelligent questions regarding what is necessary to constitute the legitimacy of the state and its laws, and make some progress toward answering those questions.
5. Meaningfully raise intelligent questions regarding the relation between commerce and civil society and regarding the legitimate limits of corporate activity, and make some progress toward answering those questions.
6. Understand and articulate some of the ways in which the modern liberal concept of freedom has provided a certain appearance of legitimacy to corporate activity in the global market.
7. Critically evaluate modernity and its assumptions, and to raise questions regarding the adequacy of the modern liberal paradigm of freedom and the liberal democratic state in a global context.
8. Clearly articulate, explain, and critically evaluate the major conceptual categories within some of the more recent political philosophies.
9. Articulate, in terms of the categories of various political philosophies, some of the problems posed by corporate globalization to democratic participation.
10. Articulate and critically evaluate, in terms of a coherent political philosophy, various responses to problems posed by corporate globalization to democratic participation.
11. Raise important questions concerning what kind of categories, concepts and paradigms are called for in the context of global capitalism -- questions that are well grounded in the tradition of political philosophy and which look ahead to future requirements of what needs to be done and thought.
(All prices are given in Canadian dollars.)
Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Translated by Brian Massumi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1987. ISBN 0-8166-1402-4; $29.95.
Wayne Ellwood. The No-Nonsense Guide to Globalization. ISBN 1896357466; London: Verso, 2001. $14.95.
Naomi Klein. No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies. Vintage Canada, 2000. ISBN 0-676-97282-9; $21.95.
Herbert Marcuse. One Dimensional Man. Boston: Beacon Press, 1964. ISBN 0807014176; $26.95.
Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt. Empire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000. ISBN 0-674-00671-2; $29.50.