Conflicts, Political Arrangements and Legitimacy
A.Y. 2024/2025
Learning objectives
The course intends to prepare students to engage with complex political issues and to enhance their analytical and argumentative skills. These core objectives are pursued by providing students with a comprehensive understanding of the key concepts, theories, and debates in political philosophy, which are meant to be useful tools for tackling controversial and publicly debated political questions. More specifically, the course focuses on political conflicts, their sources and their dynamics and on the relevant strategies and arrangements to deal with them. The latter are investigated comparatively in order to enable students to grasp their relative merits and shortcomings. Additionally, the course proposes to train students to apply theoretical categories and frameworks to real-world scenarios for better appreciating their potentiality to make sense of and assess political events and phenomena.
Expected learning outcomes
KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING:
Students are expected to acquire a comprehensive understanding of political conflicts and their relevance for both politics and political philosophy as well as a thorough knowledge of the available options and arrangements to tackle conflicts and their implications. More specifically, students are expected to be able to:
- define conflict and identify its primary causes;
- critically discuss the link between conflict and politics;
- argue for and against the idea that conflict can be politically fruitful;
- comparatively assess strategies aimed at supressing conflict with arrangements that are meant to manage - rather than to eliminate - conflict and with arrangements that acknowledge pluralism and its value;
- explain what political dissent is and why it characterizes even political societies that do not suppress conflict but rather embrace pluralism;
- illustrate the dissenting strategies available to political actors and to assess them by considering both their legitimacy and their effectiveness;
- clarify and evaluate the political options for accommodating dissenting positions.
APPLYING KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING:
Students are expected to be able to apply their acquired knowledge and competences to issues animating public debates. To this end, the course offers several occasions for in-depth class discussion, which will provide a suitable space for debating the relevance and import of the philosophical notions and approaches under examination with respect to more concrete matters and questions. Moreover, during classes, the theoretical notions and models under investigations will be illustrated with references to real-world cases of political conflict and their settlement.
MAKING JUDGEMENTS:
The structure of the course and the selected readings are expected to increase students' propensity for autonomous judgment. The course will address essays providing opposite arguments concerning, for instance, the role of conflict in politics or the strategies to manage it. Students will be therefore introduced to a plurality of perspectives, and this is expected to improve their capacity to adjudicate among competing arguments by autonomously assessing their relative merits and limits. The bulk of the course will consist in the analysis of philosophical arguments - of their premises and their internal structure - and, during both class discussions and presentations, students will be required to critically examine the arguments at stake, thus enhancing their capacity to autonomously judge their validity.
COMMUNICATION:
Through class discussions and presentations, students are expected to strengthen their communication skills. They will be required to summarize complex arguments in a clear and effective way, and they are expected to actively take part in discussions, by proposing critical insights on the topics under scrutiny and by engaging with arguments proposed by their classmates.
Students are expected to acquire a comprehensive understanding of political conflicts and their relevance for both politics and political philosophy as well as a thorough knowledge of the available options and arrangements to tackle conflicts and their implications. More specifically, students are expected to be able to:
- define conflict and identify its primary causes;
- critically discuss the link between conflict and politics;
- argue for and against the idea that conflict can be politically fruitful;
- comparatively assess strategies aimed at supressing conflict with arrangements that are meant to manage - rather than to eliminate - conflict and with arrangements that acknowledge pluralism and its value;
- explain what political dissent is and why it characterizes even political societies that do not suppress conflict but rather embrace pluralism;
- illustrate the dissenting strategies available to political actors and to assess them by considering both their legitimacy and their effectiveness;
- clarify and evaluate the political options for accommodating dissenting positions.
APPLYING KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING:
Students are expected to be able to apply their acquired knowledge and competences to issues animating public debates. To this end, the course offers several occasions for in-depth class discussion, which will provide a suitable space for debating the relevance and import of the philosophical notions and approaches under examination with respect to more concrete matters and questions. Moreover, during classes, the theoretical notions and models under investigations will be illustrated with references to real-world cases of political conflict and their settlement.
MAKING JUDGEMENTS:
The structure of the course and the selected readings are expected to increase students' propensity for autonomous judgment. The course will address essays providing opposite arguments concerning, for instance, the role of conflict in politics or the strategies to manage it. Students will be therefore introduced to a plurality of perspectives, and this is expected to improve their capacity to adjudicate among competing arguments by autonomously assessing their relative merits and limits. The bulk of the course will consist in the analysis of philosophical arguments - of their premises and their internal structure - and, during both class discussions and presentations, students will be required to critically examine the arguments at stake, thus enhancing their capacity to autonomously judge their validity.
COMMUNICATION:
Through class discussions and presentations, students are expected to strengthen their communication skills. They will be required to summarize complex arguments in a clear and effective way, and they are expected to actively take part in discussions, by proposing critical insights on the topics under scrutiny and by engaging with arguments proposed by their classmates.
Lesson period: First trimester
Assessment methods: Esame
Assessment result: voto verbalizzato in trentesimi
Single course
This course can be attended as a single course.
Course syllabus and organization
Single session
Responsible
Lesson period
First trimester
Course syllabus
The course focuses on political conflicts and the relevant strategies and arrangements to deal with them.
After a preliminary discussion about the notion of conflict and its relevance both in politics and political philosophy, the course investigates the sources of conflict, by paying particular attention to conflicts resulting from competing interests, incompatible values and recognition claims. This analysis is meant to provide insights about the specificity of the challenges connected to conflicts triggered by different factors. Yet, independently of its specific causes, conflict can be qualified negatively, due to its disruptive effects. Accordingly, some prominent approaches in political philosophy - most notably Hobbes' - attribute politics with the task of eliminating conflict, and hence, devise political arrangements meant to suppress it. The course addresses similar solutions and offers insights to evaluate them by emphasizing that, although effective in avoiding the negative consequences of conflict, they tend to threaten liberty. Indeed, either liberty is sacrificed for the sake of security or, as in despotic regimes, pacification is imposed through spreading fear, which undermines the possibility of meaningfully exercising liberty.
The course also addresses other prominent traditions in political philosophy - which can be traced back to Machiavelli and Schmitt - that qualify conflict as a distinguishing and ineliminable feature of politics and that invite to question whether conflict can also be conceived as a valuable element to be preserved and valorised. Therefore, the course investigates approaches that emphasize and vindicate the agonistic character of politics, approaches that recognise the inevitability of conflict and propose strategies to cope with it and establish peaceful forms of coexistence despite conflict, and approaches that defend liberal arrangements for their capacity to keep conflict under control by granting ample space to pluralism and its expression.
Even within institutional settings that protects and valorise pluralism, it is unlikely that conflict will be totally absent. Public decisions and authorities are likely to be challenged and contested by dissenting parties, who can voice and promote their claims through a variety of political strategies, ranging from advocacy or peaceful protests to more radical actions, involving disobedience and, at times, violence. Therefore, the course offers a review of the relevant criteria to assess, on the one hand, the legitimacy and the effectiveness of the strategies employed by dissenting actors and, on the other, the fruitfulness of political solutions that aim at accommodating dissent through toleration or inclusive arrangements. The course also explores the relevance and import of the right to opt out, intended as an option available to dissenting parties when accommodating solutions are not workable or prove unsatisfying.
Finally, the course discusses whether it would be possible to have a conflict-free society, namely, a society in which conflict is absent, not because it is actively suppressed, but because it does not arise due to individual motivations and commitment to live harmoniously, or to the lack of factors that trigger conflict, such as the scarcity of resources, the endorsement of incompatible values or of identity claims that cannot be reconciled. Once the conditions making a similar society possible are clarified, the course offers insights to assess whether it would be desirable or not, whether it would amount to a utopian or a dystopian society, thus further enlightening the reasons why conflict can be alternatively qualified as positive or negative and the costs and the benefits of doing away with conflict.
The above-mentioned questions and issues will be introduced through classes organized around the following topics and subtopics:
CONFLICTS AND ITS SOURCES
- Competing interests
- Values and recognition
WITHOUT CONFLICT
- The Leviathan's authority. Security before liberty
- Despotism and regimes of fear: Hannah Arendt and Judith Shklar
CONFLICT AND POLITICS
- Politics as conflict
- Conflict as a value?
- Settling conflicts: goals and procedures
ARBITRATION
- Human nature before politics
- Political judgement and legitimate authority in John Locke
LIBERAL IDEALS AND PLURALISM
- Mill and Berlin. Against the tyranny of the majority and monism
- Rawls. Pluralism and the priority of the right over the good
ACTING CONFLICT
- Political dissent
- Violence and politics
- Civil, uncivil and radical actions
THE POLITICAL STRATEGY OF TOLERATION
- Classical and multicultural toleration
THE MIGRANTS' SOCIETY
- The limits of traditional inclusion and the right to leave
CONFLICT VS. SOCIAL HARMONY
- Conflictless societies: utopia or dystopia?
Classes devoted to introducing the listed topics are accompanied by classes dedicated to the discussion of the connected readings. Moreover, the final part of the course is entirely devoted to the analysis of real-world scenarios that provide instances of how conflicts emerge and are tackled in politics, of how political actors express their dissent or advance their conflicting claims and of how and through which political solutions or arrangements similar claims are addressed and managed. The critical discussion of the selected cases is meant to show how theoretical categories and analytical frames can be fruitfully employed in order to make sense of and to assess concrete political events and phenomena.
The complete syllabus of the course will be made available on the myAriel website of the course before classes start.
After a preliminary discussion about the notion of conflict and its relevance both in politics and political philosophy, the course investigates the sources of conflict, by paying particular attention to conflicts resulting from competing interests, incompatible values and recognition claims. This analysis is meant to provide insights about the specificity of the challenges connected to conflicts triggered by different factors. Yet, independently of its specific causes, conflict can be qualified negatively, due to its disruptive effects. Accordingly, some prominent approaches in political philosophy - most notably Hobbes' - attribute politics with the task of eliminating conflict, and hence, devise political arrangements meant to suppress it. The course addresses similar solutions and offers insights to evaluate them by emphasizing that, although effective in avoiding the negative consequences of conflict, they tend to threaten liberty. Indeed, either liberty is sacrificed for the sake of security or, as in despotic regimes, pacification is imposed through spreading fear, which undermines the possibility of meaningfully exercising liberty.
The course also addresses other prominent traditions in political philosophy - which can be traced back to Machiavelli and Schmitt - that qualify conflict as a distinguishing and ineliminable feature of politics and that invite to question whether conflict can also be conceived as a valuable element to be preserved and valorised. Therefore, the course investigates approaches that emphasize and vindicate the agonistic character of politics, approaches that recognise the inevitability of conflict and propose strategies to cope with it and establish peaceful forms of coexistence despite conflict, and approaches that defend liberal arrangements for their capacity to keep conflict under control by granting ample space to pluralism and its expression.
Even within institutional settings that protects and valorise pluralism, it is unlikely that conflict will be totally absent. Public decisions and authorities are likely to be challenged and contested by dissenting parties, who can voice and promote their claims through a variety of political strategies, ranging from advocacy or peaceful protests to more radical actions, involving disobedience and, at times, violence. Therefore, the course offers a review of the relevant criteria to assess, on the one hand, the legitimacy and the effectiveness of the strategies employed by dissenting actors and, on the other, the fruitfulness of political solutions that aim at accommodating dissent through toleration or inclusive arrangements. The course also explores the relevance and import of the right to opt out, intended as an option available to dissenting parties when accommodating solutions are not workable or prove unsatisfying.
Finally, the course discusses whether it would be possible to have a conflict-free society, namely, a society in which conflict is absent, not because it is actively suppressed, but because it does not arise due to individual motivations and commitment to live harmoniously, or to the lack of factors that trigger conflict, such as the scarcity of resources, the endorsement of incompatible values or of identity claims that cannot be reconciled. Once the conditions making a similar society possible are clarified, the course offers insights to assess whether it would be desirable or not, whether it would amount to a utopian or a dystopian society, thus further enlightening the reasons why conflict can be alternatively qualified as positive or negative and the costs and the benefits of doing away with conflict.
The above-mentioned questions and issues will be introduced through classes organized around the following topics and subtopics:
CONFLICTS AND ITS SOURCES
- Competing interests
- Values and recognition
WITHOUT CONFLICT
- The Leviathan's authority. Security before liberty
- Despotism and regimes of fear: Hannah Arendt and Judith Shklar
CONFLICT AND POLITICS
- Politics as conflict
- Conflict as a value?
- Settling conflicts: goals and procedures
ARBITRATION
- Human nature before politics
- Political judgement and legitimate authority in John Locke
LIBERAL IDEALS AND PLURALISM
- Mill and Berlin. Against the tyranny of the majority and monism
- Rawls. Pluralism and the priority of the right over the good
ACTING CONFLICT
- Political dissent
- Violence and politics
- Civil, uncivil and radical actions
THE POLITICAL STRATEGY OF TOLERATION
- Classical and multicultural toleration
THE MIGRANTS' SOCIETY
- The limits of traditional inclusion and the right to leave
CONFLICT VS. SOCIAL HARMONY
- Conflictless societies: utopia or dystopia?
Classes devoted to introducing the listed topics are accompanied by classes dedicated to the discussion of the connected readings. Moreover, the final part of the course is entirely devoted to the analysis of real-world scenarios that provide instances of how conflicts emerge and are tackled in politics, of how political actors express their dissent or advance their conflicting claims and of how and through which political solutions or arrangements similar claims are addressed and managed. The critical discussion of the selected cases is meant to show how theoretical categories and analytical frames can be fruitfully employed in order to make sense of and to assess concrete political events and phenomena.
The complete syllabus of the course will be made available on the myAriel website of the course before classes start.
Prerequisites for admission
No specific preliminary knowledge is required to fruitfully attend the course or take the exam.
Teaching methods
The course combines lessons, class discussions and presentations. Students' active participation in all in-class activities is strongly encouraged, and for the presentations, students will be required to work in teams.
Teaching materials, including the slides presented during classes, will be available on the myAriel website of the course. The slides constitute, especially for attending students, a reference to keep track of the development of the program and, for both attending and non-attending students, a reference to easily identify the main issues and questions to focus on when addressing reading assignments and preparing for the exam.
The Ariel website of the course will also host materials prepared by the students for the case discussions and meant to be shared with their colleagues.
Teaching materials, including the slides presented during classes, will be available on the myAriel website of the course. The slides constitute, especially for attending students, a reference to keep track of the development of the program and, for both attending and non-attending students, a reference to easily identify the main issues and questions to focus on when addressing reading assignments and preparing for the exam.
The Ariel website of the course will also host materials prepared by the students for the case discussions and meant to be shared with their colleagues.
Teaching Resources
The exam material is different for: 1. Attending students, and 2. Non-attending students.
1. ATTENDING STUDENTS
For attending students, the exam material is organized with reference to the topics included in the syllabus.
CONFLITCTS AND ITS SOURCES
- Lukes, S. (1989), "Making sense of moral conflict", in N. L. Rosenblum (ed.), Liberalism and the moral life, Harvard University Press, pp. 127-142.
Berlin, I. (2002), Liberty, Oxford University Press - Excerpts
- Gray, J. (1998), "Where pluralists and liberals part company", International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 6(1): 17-36.
- Taylor, C. (1992), "The politics of recognition", in A. Gutman (ed.), Multicultaralism. Examining the politics of recognition, Princeton University Press, pp. 25-73.
CONFLICTS AND POLITICS
- Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1848), The Communist Manifest - Excerpts
- Schmitt, C. (1932), The concept of the political - Excerpts
- Machiavelli, N. (1531), Discourses on the first ten books of Titus Livy - Book I, Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 37.
- Machiavelli, N. (1525), Florentine Histories - Book III, Chapter 1.
- Mouffe, C. (2013), Agonistics. Thinking the world politically, Verso - Excerpts.
- Hampshire, S. (1996), "Justice is conflict", Tanner lectures on human values.
- Mansbridge, J. et al. (2010), "The place of self‐interest and the role of power in deliberative democracy", Journal of Political Philosophy, 18(1): 64-100.
ACTING CONFLICT
- Milligan, T. (2022), "The very idea of dissent", in The ethics of political dissent, Routledge, pp. 31-54
- Euchner, C. (2018), "Tactics of activists", in Extraordinary politics: How protest and dissent are changing American democracy. Routledge.
- Arendt, H. (1970), On violence, Harcourt - Excerpts.
- Bufacchi, V. (2005), "Two concepts of violence", Political studies review, 3(2), 193-204.
- Delmas, C. (2018), A duty to resist: When disobedience should be uncivil. Oxford University Press - Excerpts.
- Akbar, A. A. (2020), "The Radical Possibilities of Protest", in M. Schwartzberg (ed.), Protest and Dissent: NOMOS LXII (Vol. 3), New York University Press, pp. 64-80.
POLITICS WITHOUT CONFLICT
- Cohen, G.A. (2008), Why not Socialism?, Princeton University Press - pp. 3-45.
- Nozick, R. (1974), "A Framework for Utopia", in Anarchy, State and Utopia, Basic Books, pp. 297-334.
WITHOUT CONFLICT
- Hobbes, T. [1651], Leviathan, chap. 14, 17, 21.
- Hobbes, T. [1642], De Cive, chap. 5.
- Arendt, H. (1953), "Ideology and Terror", Review of Politics, 15(3), 303-327.
- Arendt, H. (1950), "Social Science Techniques and the Study of Concentration Camps", Jewish social studies, 12(1), 49-64.
- Arendt, H. (1951, 1976), The Origins of Totalitarianism, pp. 464-482.
- Shklar, J. (1987), Montesquieu, chap. 1.
- Shklar, J. (1989), "Liberalism of Fear", in Liberalism and the Moral Life, ed. Nancy L. Rosenblum, pp. 21-38.
ARBITRATION
Locke, J. [1690], Second Treatise of Government, chap. I, II, III, VII §77, VIII §95-99.119-122.
LIBERAL IDEALS AND PLURALISM
- Mill, J. S. [1859], On Liberty, chap. 1, 3.
- Berlin, I. (2002), Freedom and its Betrayal, chap. "Rousseau".
- Rawls, J. (1988), "The Priority of Right and Ideas of the Good", Philosophy & Public Affairs, 17(4), 251-276.
THE POLITICAL STRATEGY OF TOLERATION
- Locke, J. [1689], A Letter Concerning Toleration.
- Galeotti, A. E. (2002), Toleration as Recognition, chap. 2.
THE MIGRANTS' SOCIETY
Ottonelli, V.-Torresi, T. (2022), The Right not to Stay, chap. 1-2.
For attending students, the material for the midterm written test includes all the reading assignments listed above plus the slides with the lecture notes, which will be available on the myAriel website of the course.
Please note: Readings which are difficult to find will be available on the Ariel website of the course, where students will also find indications about the relevant excerpts from the listed readings.
2. NON-ATTENDING STUDENTS
To familiarize with the theoretical approaches and categories relevant to work on their case report and to sit for the written test, non-attending students are expected to prepare the following list of readings:
- Lukes, S. (1989), "Making sense of moral conflict", in N.L. Rosenblum (ed.), Liberalism and the moral life, Harvard University Press, pp. 127-142.
- Ceva, E. (2012), "Pluralism", in A. Besussi (ed.), A companion to political philosophy. Methods, tools, topics, Ashgate, pp. 195-205.
- Berlin, I. (2002), Liberty, Oxford University Press, excerpts
- Gray, J. (1998), "Where pluralists and liberals part company", International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 6(1): 17-36.
- Taylor, C. (1992), "The politics of recognition", in A. Gutman (ed.), Multiculturalism. Examining the politics of recognition, Princeton University Press, pp. 25-73.
- Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1848), The Communist Manifest - excerpts
- Schmitt, C. (1932), The concept of the political - excerpts
- Machiavelli, N. (1531), Discourses on the first ten books of Titus Livy - Book I, Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 37.
- Machiavelli, N. (1525), Florentine Histories - Book III, chapter 1.
- Mouffe, C. (2013), Agonistics. Thinking the world politically, Verso - excerpts.
- Milligan, T. (2022), "The very idea of dissent", in The ethics of political dissent, Routledge, pp. 31-54.
- Euchner, C. (2018), Extraordinary politics: How protest and dissent are changing American democracy. Routledge - chapters: "Dimension of strategy" and "Tactics of activists".
- Toros, H. (2016). "From dissent to revolution: politics and violence", in M. Breen-Smyth (ed.), The Ashgate Research Companion to Political Violence, Routledge, pp. 119-136.
- Bufacchi, V. (2007), Violence and social justice, Springer - chapters: "The concept of violence", "Violence and integrity", and "Four faces of violence".
- Arendt, H. (1970), On violence, Harcourt - excerpts.
- Delmas, C. (2018), A duty to resist: When disobedience should be uncivil. Oxford University Press - excerpts.
- Celikates, R. (2016), "Democratizing civil disobedience", Philosophy & Social Criticism, 42(10), 982-994.
- Akbar, A. A. (2020), "The Radical Possibilities of Protest", in M. Schwartzberg (ed.), Protest and Dissent: NOMOS LXII (Vol. 3). NYU Press, pp. 64-80.
- Hobbes, T. [1651], Leviathan, chap. 14, 17, 21.
- Hobbes, T. [1642], De Cive, chap. 5.
- Arendt, H. (1953), "Ideology and Terror", Review of Politics, 15(3), 303-327.
- Arendt, H. (1950), "Social Science Techniques and the Study of Concentration Camps", Jewish social studies, 12(1), 49-64.
- Arendt, H. (1951, 1976), The Origins of Totalitarianism, pp. 464-482.
- Shklar, J. (1987), Montesquieu, chap. 1.
- Shklar, J. (1989), "Liberalism of Fear", in Liberalism and the Moral Life, ed. Nancy L. Rosenblum, pp. 21-38.
- Locke, J. [1690], Second Treatise of Government, chap. I, II, III, VII §77, VIII §95-99.119-122.
- Mill, J. S. [1859], On Liberty, chap. 1, 3.
- Berlin, I. (2002), Freedom and its Betrayal, chap. "Rousseau".
- Rawls, J. (1988), "The Priority of Right and Ideas of the Good", Philosophy & Public Affairs, 17(4), 251-276.
- Locke, J. [1689], A Letter Concerning Toleration.
- Galeotti, A. E. (2002), Toleration as Recognition, chap. 2.
- Ottonelli, V.-Torresi, T. (2022), The Right not to Stay, chap. 1-2.
Please note: Readings which are difficult to find will be available on the Ariel website of the course, where students will also find indications about the relevant excerpts from the listed readings.
1. ATTENDING STUDENTS
For attending students, the exam material is organized with reference to the topics included in the syllabus.
CONFLITCTS AND ITS SOURCES
- Lukes, S. (1989), "Making sense of moral conflict", in N. L. Rosenblum (ed.), Liberalism and the moral life, Harvard University Press, pp. 127-142.
Berlin, I. (2002), Liberty, Oxford University Press - Excerpts
- Gray, J. (1998), "Where pluralists and liberals part company", International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 6(1): 17-36.
- Taylor, C. (1992), "The politics of recognition", in A. Gutman (ed.), Multicultaralism. Examining the politics of recognition, Princeton University Press, pp. 25-73.
CONFLICTS AND POLITICS
- Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1848), The Communist Manifest - Excerpts
- Schmitt, C. (1932), The concept of the political - Excerpts
- Machiavelli, N. (1531), Discourses on the first ten books of Titus Livy - Book I, Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 37.
- Machiavelli, N. (1525), Florentine Histories - Book III, Chapter 1.
- Mouffe, C. (2013), Agonistics. Thinking the world politically, Verso - Excerpts.
- Hampshire, S. (1996), "Justice is conflict", Tanner lectures on human values.
- Mansbridge, J. et al. (2010), "The place of self‐interest and the role of power in deliberative democracy", Journal of Political Philosophy, 18(1): 64-100.
ACTING CONFLICT
- Milligan, T. (2022), "The very idea of dissent", in The ethics of political dissent, Routledge, pp. 31-54
- Euchner, C. (2018), "Tactics of activists", in Extraordinary politics: How protest and dissent are changing American democracy. Routledge.
- Arendt, H. (1970), On violence, Harcourt - Excerpts.
- Bufacchi, V. (2005), "Two concepts of violence", Political studies review, 3(2), 193-204.
- Delmas, C. (2018), A duty to resist: When disobedience should be uncivil. Oxford University Press - Excerpts.
- Akbar, A. A. (2020), "The Radical Possibilities of Protest", in M. Schwartzberg (ed.), Protest and Dissent: NOMOS LXII (Vol. 3), New York University Press, pp. 64-80.
POLITICS WITHOUT CONFLICT
- Cohen, G.A. (2008), Why not Socialism?, Princeton University Press - pp. 3-45.
- Nozick, R. (1974), "A Framework for Utopia", in Anarchy, State and Utopia, Basic Books, pp. 297-334.
WITHOUT CONFLICT
- Hobbes, T. [1651], Leviathan, chap. 14, 17, 21.
- Hobbes, T. [1642], De Cive, chap. 5.
- Arendt, H. (1953), "Ideology and Terror", Review of Politics, 15(3), 303-327.
- Arendt, H. (1950), "Social Science Techniques and the Study of Concentration Camps", Jewish social studies, 12(1), 49-64.
- Arendt, H. (1951, 1976), The Origins of Totalitarianism, pp. 464-482.
- Shklar, J. (1987), Montesquieu, chap. 1.
- Shklar, J. (1989), "Liberalism of Fear", in Liberalism and the Moral Life, ed. Nancy L. Rosenblum, pp. 21-38.
ARBITRATION
Locke, J. [1690], Second Treatise of Government, chap. I, II, III, VII §77, VIII §95-99.119-122.
LIBERAL IDEALS AND PLURALISM
- Mill, J. S. [1859], On Liberty, chap. 1, 3.
- Berlin, I. (2002), Freedom and its Betrayal, chap. "Rousseau".
- Rawls, J. (1988), "The Priority of Right and Ideas of the Good", Philosophy & Public Affairs, 17(4), 251-276.
THE POLITICAL STRATEGY OF TOLERATION
- Locke, J. [1689], A Letter Concerning Toleration.
- Galeotti, A. E. (2002), Toleration as Recognition, chap. 2.
THE MIGRANTS' SOCIETY
Ottonelli, V.-Torresi, T. (2022), The Right not to Stay, chap. 1-2.
For attending students, the material for the midterm written test includes all the reading assignments listed above plus the slides with the lecture notes, which will be available on the myAriel website of the course.
Please note: Readings which are difficult to find will be available on the Ariel website of the course, where students will also find indications about the relevant excerpts from the listed readings.
2. NON-ATTENDING STUDENTS
To familiarize with the theoretical approaches and categories relevant to work on their case report and to sit for the written test, non-attending students are expected to prepare the following list of readings:
- Lukes, S. (1989), "Making sense of moral conflict", in N.L. Rosenblum (ed.), Liberalism and the moral life, Harvard University Press, pp. 127-142.
- Ceva, E. (2012), "Pluralism", in A. Besussi (ed.), A companion to political philosophy. Methods, tools, topics, Ashgate, pp. 195-205.
- Berlin, I. (2002), Liberty, Oxford University Press, excerpts
- Gray, J. (1998), "Where pluralists and liberals part company", International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 6(1): 17-36.
- Taylor, C. (1992), "The politics of recognition", in A. Gutman (ed.), Multiculturalism. Examining the politics of recognition, Princeton University Press, pp. 25-73.
- Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1848), The Communist Manifest - excerpts
- Schmitt, C. (1932), The concept of the political - excerpts
- Machiavelli, N. (1531), Discourses on the first ten books of Titus Livy - Book I, Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 37.
- Machiavelli, N. (1525), Florentine Histories - Book III, chapter 1.
- Mouffe, C. (2013), Agonistics. Thinking the world politically, Verso - excerpts.
- Milligan, T. (2022), "The very idea of dissent", in The ethics of political dissent, Routledge, pp. 31-54.
- Euchner, C. (2018), Extraordinary politics: How protest and dissent are changing American democracy. Routledge - chapters: "Dimension of strategy" and "Tactics of activists".
- Toros, H. (2016). "From dissent to revolution: politics and violence", in M. Breen-Smyth (ed.), The Ashgate Research Companion to Political Violence, Routledge, pp. 119-136.
- Bufacchi, V. (2007), Violence and social justice, Springer - chapters: "The concept of violence", "Violence and integrity", and "Four faces of violence".
- Arendt, H. (1970), On violence, Harcourt - excerpts.
- Delmas, C. (2018), A duty to resist: When disobedience should be uncivil. Oxford University Press - excerpts.
- Celikates, R. (2016), "Democratizing civil disobedience", Philosophy & Social Criticism, 42(10), 982-994.
- Akbar, A. A. (2020), "The Radical Possibilities of Protest", in M. Schwartzberg (ed.), Protest and Dissent: NOMOS LXII (Vol. 3). NYU Press, pp. 64-80.
- Hobbes, T. [1651], Leviathan, chap. 14, 17, 21.
- Hobbes, T. [1642], De Cive, chap. 5.
- Arendt, H. (1953), "Ideology and Terror", Review of Politics, 15(3), 303-327.
- Arendt, H. (1950), "Social Science Techniques and the Study of Concentration Camps", Jewish social studies, 12(1), 49-64.
- Arendt, H. (1951, 1976), The Origins of Totalitarianism, pp. 464-482.
- Shklar, J. (1987), Montesquieu, chap. 1.
- Shklar, J. (1989), "Liberalism of Fear", in Liberalism and the Moral Life, ed. Nancy L. Rosenblum, pp. 21-38.
- Locke, J. [1690], Second Treatise of Government, chap. I, II, III, VII §77, VIII §95-99.119-122.
- Mill, J. S. [1859], On Liberty, chap. 1, 3.
- Berlin, I. (2002), Freedom and its Betrayal, chap. "Rousseau".
- Rawls, J. (1988), "The Priority of Right and Ideas of the Good", Philosophy & Public Affairs, 17(4), 251-276.
- Locke, J. [1689], A Letter Concerning Toleration.
- Galeotti, A. E. (2002), Toleration as Recognition, chap. 2.
- Ottonelli, V.-Torresi, T. (2022), The Right not to Stay, chap. 1-2.
Please note: Readings which are difficult to find will be available on the Ariel website of the course, where students will also find indications about the relevant excerpts from the listed readings.
Assessment methods and Criteria
The exam structure is different for: 1. Attending students, and 2. Non-attending students.
1. ATTENDING STUDENTS
Attending students are expected to regularly attend classes and actively participate in discussions and other in-class activities. More specifically, attending students are required to:
- fill in the online "Registration form" within the relevant deadline;
- before each class devoted to discussion, deliver remarks on the readings at stake by completing the relative online "Questions and comments form";
- sit for the midterm written test;
- select two cases on which they will work with their teams for the case presentations to be delivered in class;
- take an active part in the preparation of the case presentations and in the following discussions;
- deliver a "Case report".
The deadline for each assignment, the online forms, and the dates of the midterm written test and the presentations will be made available on the myAriel website of the course before classes start.
Please note: The listed requirements and the connected deadlines admit no exceptions: students who fail to comply with any of them will have to take the exam on the program for non-attending students.
For students fulfilling all the mentioned requirements, final grades (out of thirty) result from the weighted mean between their grades for:
- the midterm written test (30%) [see section 1.1];
- participation in the two discussions following their teams' presentations (40% in total, 20% each) [see section 1.2];
- the Case report (30%) [see section 1.3].
Please note: The mean is rounded up from 0.5 upwards, and 30 cum laude equals 33 and it is obtained with a minimum score of 31.5.
Final grades for attending students will be published on the myAriel website of the course before official registration.
1.1 MIDTERM WRITTEN TEST
The test comprises open questions meant to verify the students' knowledge and understanding of the readings included in the exam program and of the topics addressed during classes and discussions. The written test also intends to ascertain the students' capacity to appropriately summarize and frame their acquired knowledge in order to answer specific questions rigorously and without digressions. Moreover, the written test intends to verify the students' capacity to establish meaningful connections among the various topics addressed in the exam materials, to grasp the implications of the relevant arguments and to assess, also in a comparative way, the adequacy of the different philosophical approaches illustrated in the reading assignments or discussed during classes.
The written tests will be marked with grades out of thirty, resulting from the separate evaluation of each provided answer. The evaluation is based on the pertinence, completeness and correctness of the content of the provided answers, and it also considers the answers' clarity and level of detail as well as the coherence, relevance and originality of the arguments proposed by the students [see section 3]. The overall grade for the written test is determined by the mean of the grades attributed to each answer. Please note: The mean is rounded up from 0.5 upwards, and 30 cum laude equals 33 and it is obtained with a minimum score of 31.5. The results of the midterm written test for attending students will be published on the myAriel website of the course.
1.2 CASE PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION
The final part of the course focuses on real-world cases meant to provide instances of how conflicts emerge and are tackled in politics. Students will be required to select two of the proposed cases, and they will work in teams, with each team responsible for preparing and delivering an in-class presentation of one case.
Case presentations are expected to provide: 1. a summary of the relevant facts and (if appropriate) insights for contextualizing the case; 2. indications on the categories relevant to account for or to interpret the case (if appropriate, with reference to the theoretical categories and approaches addressed during classes); 3. an evaluative analysis of the strategies endorsed by the actors involved and/or of the political solutions and arrangements at stake. More details on how to prepare the presentation will be provided during classes and on the myAriel website of the course.
Each team presentation will need to respect specific time constraints and will be followed by a general discussion on the case at hand. The members of the presenting team will be assessed individually based on their participation in the discussion, subject to time constraints too. More precisely, students will be evaluated based on their capacity to: 1. appropriately intervene in the discussion by proposing issues to be dealt with (up to 10 points); 2. address questions and comments by students in the audience (up to 10 points); 3. defend their proposed interpretation and evaluation of the case (up to 10 points). Students will also be assessed considering their ability to respect time constraints and to efficiently use the time at their disposal (up to 3 points).
The grade (out of thirty) for the participation in the case discussion is determined by the sum of the scores obtained for each of the mentioned aspects. 30 cum laude will be obtained with a minimum score of 31. The grades for participation in case discussion will be published on the myAriel website of the course at the end of the course.
1.3 CASE REPORT
The Case report is a short document to be prepared by each student individually and aimed at presenting and discussing one of the cases proposed for the case presentations. Please note: Students are required to select a case they have not addressed with their teams, and they are allowed to propose a case of their choice to be agreed upon in advance with one of the instructors of the course.
The Case report should be no longer than 15.000 characters (titles, notes, spaces, etc. included - bibliography not included) and it is meant to provide: 1. a summary of the relevant facts and (if appropriate) insights to contextualize the case; 2. indications on the categories relevant to account for or to interpret the case (if appropriate, with reference to the theoretical categories and approaches addressed during classes); 3. an evaluative analysis of the strategies endorsed by the actors involved and/or of the political solutions and arrangements at stake. More details on how to write the Case report will be offered during classes and on the myAriel website of the course.
The Case report will be assessed considering: 1. the relevance and completeness of the factual information provided about the case (up to 8 points); 2. the appropriateness and insightfulness of the proposed interpretation (up to 8 points); 3. the consistency, relevance and originality of the arguments proposed to evaluate the decisions and the strategies endorsed by the actors involved and/or to assess the political solutions and arrangements at stake (up to 8 points); 4. the overall structure of the report (up to 6 points); 5. the relevance of the sources and materials referred to in the report, and the appropriateness of their use (up to 3 points).
The overall grade (out of thirty) for the case report is determined by the sum of the scores obtained for each of the mentioned aspects. 30 cum laude will be obtained with a minimum score of 31.The results for the case report will be published on the myAriel website of the course.
2. NON-ATTENDING STUDENTS
For non-attending students, the exam consists of: 1. preparing a "Case report" to be submitted through the myAriel website of the course within the specified deadline for the selected exam sessions (see section 2.1); 2. sitting for a written test (see section 2.2).
Please note: Students who fail to submit the case report within the relevant deadline will not have the chance to sit for the written test; Case reports submitted by students who do no sit for the written test will not be assessed.
The Case Report and the written test are evaluated separately, since they are meant to ascertain the acquisition of different competences and capacities. The final grade results from the mean between the grade obtained for the Case Report and the grade obtained for the written test. Please note: The mean is rounded up from 0.5 upwards, and 30 cum laude equals 33 and it is obtained with a minimum score of 31.5.
Final grades for non-attending students will be published on the myAriel website of the course before official registration.
2.1 CASE REPORT
The Case report is a short document aimed at presenting and discussing one of cases listed on the myAriel website of the course. The proposed cases are drawn from real-world scenarios that provide instances of how conflicts emerge and are tackled in politics.
The Case report should be no longer than 15.000 characters (titles, notes, spaces, etc. included - bibliography not included) and it is meant to provide: 1. a summary of the relevant facts and (if appropriate) insights to contextualize the case; 2. indications on the categories relevant to account for or to interpret the case (if appropriate, with reference to the theoretical categories and approaches addressed in the readings); 3. an evaluative analysis of the strategies endorsed by the actors involved and/or of the political solutions and arrangements at stake. More details on how to write the Case report will be offered on the myAriel website of the course.
The Case report will be assessed considering: 1. the relevance and completeness of the factual information provided about the case (up to 8 points); 2. the appropriateness and insightfulness of the proposed interpretation (up to 8 points); 3. the consistency, relevance and originality of the arguments proposed to evaluate the decisions and the strategies endorsed by the actors involved and/or to assess the political solutions and arrangements at stake (up to 8 points); 4. the overall structure of the report (up to 6 points); 5. the relevance of the sources and materials referred to in the report, and the appropriateness of their use (up to 3 points).
The overall grade (out of thirty) for the case report is determined by the sum of the scores obtained for each of the mentioned aspects. 30 cum laude will be obtained with a minimum score of 31.
2.2 WRITTEN TEST
The test comprises open questions meant to verify the students' knowledge and understanding of the readings included in the exam program. The written test also intends to ascertain the students' capacity to appropriately summarize and frame their acquired knowledge in order to answer specific questions rigorously and without digressions. Moreover, the written test aims at verifying the students' capacity to establish meaningful connections among the various topics addressed in the exam materials, to grasp the implications of the relevant arguments and to assess, also in a comparative way, the adequacy of the different philosophical approaches illustrated in the reading assignments.
The written tests will be marked with grades out of thirty, resulting from the separate evaluation of each provided answer. The evaluation is based on the pertinence, completeness and correctness of the content of the provided answers, and it also considers the answers' clarity and level of detail as well as the coherence, relevance and originality of the arguments proposed by the students [see section 3]. The overall grade for the written test is determined by the mean of the grades attributed to each answer. Please note: The mean is rounded up from 0.5 upwards, and 30 cum laude equals 33 and it is obtained with a minimum score of 31.5.
3. GRADES SCALE FOR WRITTEN TESTS' ANSWERS
The following indications apply to the midterm written test for attending students and to the written test for non-non attending students.
Each of provided answers is assessed singularly and grades (out of thirty) are attributed as follows:
- between 10 and 14 to non-pertinent answers (missing answers are treated as non-pertinent, and they are automatically assigned 10/30);
- between 14 and 17 to incomplete answers;
- between 12 and 17 to pertinent and complete but incorrect answers;
- between 18 and 23 to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing serious inaccuracies and/or excessive irrelevant remarks or resulting unclear, not detailed, not contextualized or not supported by arguments;
- between 24 and 26 to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing only minor inaccuracies and/or few irrelevant remarks or resulting partially unclear, not appropriately detailed, not adequately contextualized or not supported by fully satisfactory arguments;
- between 27 and 28 to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing no inaccuracies or irrelevant remarks and resulting clear, appropriately detailed, well contextualized and supported by fully satisfactory arguments;
- between 29 and 30 to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing no inaccuracies or irrelevant remarks, resulting clear, appropriately detailed, well contextualized, supported by fully satisfactory arguments, exhaustive, and including some original insights;
- 30 cum laude to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing no inaccuracies or irrelevant remarks, resulting clear, appropriately detailed, well contextualized, supported by fully satisfactory arguments, exhaustive, and showing the capacity to rework and articulate acquired notions and knowledge in a rigorous and original way.
1. ATTENDING STUDENTS
Attending students are expected to regularly attend classes and actively participate in discussions and other in-class activities. More specifically, attending students are required to:
- fill in the online "Registration form" within the relevant deadline;
- before each class devoted to discussion, deliver remarks on the readings at stake by completing the relative online "Questions and comments form";
- sit for the midterm written test;
- select two cases on which they will work with their teams for the case presentations to be delivered in class;
- take an active part in the preparation of the case presentations and in the following discussions;
- deliver a "Case report".
The deadline for each assignment, the online forms, and the dates of the midterm written test and the presentations will be made available on the myAriel website of the course before classes start.
Please note: The listed requirements and the connected deadlines admit no exceptions: students who fail to comply with any of them will have to take the exam on the program for non-attending students.
For students fulfilling all the mentioned requirements, final grades (out of thirty) result from the weighted mean between their grades for:
- the midterm written test (30%) [see section 1.1];
- participation in the two discussions following their teams' presentations (40% in total, 20% each) [see section 1.2];
- the Case report (30%) [see section 1.3].
Please note: The mean is rounded up from 0.5 upwards, and 30 cum laude equals 33 and it is obtained with a minimum score of 31.5.
Final grades for attending students will be published on the myAriel website of the course before official registration.
1.1 MIDTERM WRITTEN TEST
The test comprises open questions meant to verify the students' knowledge and understanding of the readings included in the exam program and of the topics addressed during classes and discussions. The written test also intends to ascertain the students' capacity to appropriately summarize and frame their acquired knowledge in order to answer specific questions rigorously and without digressions. Moreover, the written test intends to verify the students' capacity to establish meaningful connections among the various topics addressed in the exam materials, to grasp the implications of the relevant arguments and to assess, also in a comparative way, the adequacy of the different philosophical approaches illustrated in the reading assignments or discussed during classes.
The written tests will be marked with grades out of thirty, resulting from the separate evaluation of each provided answer. The evaluation is based on the pertinence, completeness and correctness of the content of the provided answers, and it also considers the answers' clarity and level of detail as well as the coherence, relevance and originality of the arguments proposed by the students [see section 3]. The overall grade for the written test is determined by the mean of the grades attributed to each answer. Please note: The mean is rounded up from 0.5 upwards, and 30 cum laude equals 33 and it is obtained with a minimum score of 31.5. The results of the midterm written test for attending students will be published on the myAriel website of the course.
1.2 CASE PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION
The final part of the course focuses on real-world cases meant to provide instances of how conflicts emerge and are tackled in politics. Students will be required to select two of the proposed cases, and they will work in teams, with each team responsible for preparing and delivering an in-class presentation of one case.
Case presentations are expected to provide: 1. a summary of the relevant facts and (if appropriate) insights for contextualizing the case; 2. indications on the categories relevant to account for or to interpret the case (if appropriate, with reference to the theoretical categories and approaches addressed during classes); 3. an evaluative analysis of the strategies endorsed by the actors involved and/or of the political solutions and arrangements at stake. More details on how to prepare the presentation will be provided during classes and on the myAriel website of the course.
Each team presentation will need to respect specific time constraints and will be followed by a general discussion on the case at hand. The members of the presenting team will be assessed individually based on their participation in the discussion, subject to time constraints too. More precisely, students will be evaluated based on their capacity to: 1. appropriately intervene in the discussion by proposing issues to be dealt with (up to 10 points); 2. address questions and comments by students in the audience (up to 10 points); 3. defend their proposed interpretation and evaluation of the case (up to 10 points). Students will also be assessed considering their ability to respect time constraints and to efficiently use the time at their disposal (up to 3 points).
The grade (out of thirty) for the participation in the case discussion is determined by the sum of the scores obtained for each of the mentioned aspects. 30 cum laude will be obtained with a minimum score of 31. The grades for participation in case discussion will be published on the myAriel website of the course at the end of the course.
1.3 CASE REPORT
The Case report is a short document to be prepared by each student individually and aimed at presenting and discussing one of the cases proposed for the case presentations. Please note: Students are required to select a case they have not addressed with their teams, and they are allowed to propose a case of their choice to be agreed upon in advance with one of the instructors of the course.
The Case report should be no longer than 15.000 characters (titles, notes, spaces, etc. included - bibliography not included) and it is meant to provide: 1. a summary of the relevant facts and (if appropriate) insights to contextualize the case; 2. indications on the categories relevant to account for or to interpret the case (if appropriate, with reference to the theoretical categories and approaches addressed during classes); 3. an evaluative analysis of the strategies endorsed by the actors involved and/or of the political solutions and arrangements at stake. More details on how to write the Case report will be offered during classes and on the myAriel website of the course.
The Case report will be assessed considering: 1. the relevance and completeness of the factual information provided about the case (up to 8 points); 2. the appropriateness and insightfulness of the proposed interpretation (up to 8 points); 3. the consistency, relevance and originality of the arguments proposed to evaluate the decisions and the strategies endorsed by the actors involved and/or to assess the political solutions and arrangements at stake (up to 8 points); 4. the overall structure of the report (up to 6 points); 5. the relevance of the sources and materials referred to in the report, and the appropriateness of their use (up to 3 points).
The overall grade (out of thirty) for the case report is determined by the sum of the scores obtained for each of the mentioned aspects. 30 cum laude will be obtained with a minimum score of 31.The results for the case report will be published on the myAriel website of the course.
2. NON-ATTENDING STUDENTS
For non-attending students, the exam consists of: 1. preparing a "Case report" to be submitted through the myAriel website of the course within the specified deadline for the selected exam sessions (see section 2.1); 2. sitting for a written test (see section 2.2).
Please note: Students who fail to submit the case report within the relevant deadline will not have the chance to sit for the written test; Case reports submitted by students who do no sit for the written test will not be assessed.
The Case Report and the written test are evaluated separately, since they are meant to ascertain the acquisition of different competences and capacities. The final grade results from the mean between the grade obtained for the Case Report and the grade obtained for the written test. Please note: The mean is rounded up from 0.5 upwards, and 30 cum laude equals 33 and it is obtained with a minimum score of 31.5.
Final grades for non-attending students will be published on the myAriel website of the course before official registration.
2.1 CASE REPORT
The Case report is a short document aimed at presenting and discussing one of cases listed on the myAriel website of the course. The proposed cases are drawn from real-world scenarios that provide instances of how conflicts emerge and are tackled in politics.
The Case report should be no longer than 15.000 characters (titles, notes, spaces, etc. included - bibliography not included) and it is meant to provide: 1. a summary of the relevant facts and (if appropriate) insights to contextualize the case; 2. indications on the categories relevant to account for or to interpret the case (if appropriate, with reference to the theoretical categories and approaches addressed in the readings); 3. an evaluative analysis of the strategies endorsed by the actors involved and/or of the political solutions and arrangements at stake. More details on how to write the Case report will be offered on the myAriel website of the course.
The Case report will be assessed considering: 1. the relevance and completeness of the factual information provided about the case (up to 8 points); 2. the appropriateness and insightfulness of the proposed interpretation (up to 8 points); 3. the consistency, relevance and originality of the arguments proposed to evaluate the decisions and the strategies endorsed by the actors involved and/or to assess the political solutions and arrangements at stake (up to 8 points); 4. the overall structure of the report (up to 6 points); 5. the relevance of the sources and materials referred to in the report, and the appropriateness of their use (up to 3 points).
The overall grade (out of thirty) for the case report is determined by the sum of the scores obtained for each of the mentioned aspects. 30 cum laude will be obtained with a minimum score of 31.
2.2 WRITTEN TEST
The test comprises open questions meant to verify the students' knowledge and understanding of the readings included in the exam program. The written test also intends to ascertain the students' capacity to appropriately summarize and frame their acquired knowledge in order to answer specific questions rigorously and without digressions. Moreover, the written test aims at verifying the students' capacity to establish meaningful connections among the various topics addressed in the exam materials, to grasp the implications of the relevant arguments and to assess, also in a comparative way, the adequacy of the different philosophical approaches illustrated in the reading assignments.
The written tests will be marked with grades out of thirty, resulting from the separate evaluation of each provided answer. The evaluation is based on the pertinence, completeness and correctness of the content of the provided answers, and it also considers the answers' clarity and level of detail as well as the coherence, relevance and originality of the arguments proposed by the students [see section 3]. The overall grade for the written test is determined by the mean of the grades attributed to each answer. Please note: The mean is rounded up from 0.5 upwards, and 30 cum laude equals 33 and it is obtained with a minimum score of 31.5.
3. GRADES SCALE FOR WRITTEN TESTS' ANSWERS
The following indications apply to the midterm written test for attending students and to the written test for non-non attending students.
Each of provided answers is assessed singularly and grades (out of thirty) are attributed as follows:
- between 10 and 14 to non-pertinent answers (missing answers are treated as non-pertinent, and they are automatically assigned 10/30);
- between 14 and 17 to incomplete answers;
- between 12 and 17 to pertinent and complete but incorrect answers;
- between 18 and 23 to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing serious inaccuracies and/or excessive irrelevant remarks or resulting unclear, not detailed, not contextualized or not supported by arguments;
- between 24 and 26 to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing only minor inaccuracies and/or few irrelevant remarks or resulting partially unclear, not appropriately detailed, not adequately contextualized or not supported by fully satisfactory arguments;
- between 27 and 28 to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing no inaccuracies or irrelevant remarks and resulting clear, appropriately detailed, well contextualized and supported by fully satisfactory arguments;
- between 29 and 30 to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing no inaccuracies or irrelevant remarks, resulting clear, appropriately detailed, well contextualized, supported by fully satisfactory arguments, exhaustive, and including some original insights;
- 30 cum laude to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing no inaccuracies or irrelevant remarks, resulting clear, appropriately detailed, well contextualized, supported by fully satisfactory arguments, exhaustive, and showing the capacity to rework and articulate acquired notions and knowledge in a rigorous and original way.
SPS/01 - POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY - University credits: 9
Lessons: 60 hours
Professors:
Pasquali Francesca, Sala Roberta
Educational website(s)
Professor(s)
Reception:
On campus: Tuesday, 16:30-18:00 - Online: Tuesday 18:00-19:30
No appointment required to attend office hours, which are held online (on MS Teams: https://tinyurl.com/549e8pje) or on campus (Dept. of Social and political science, 2nd floor, room 205). For info about theses, check the following link: