IMPORTANT: This course unit outline applies only to 2014 ...

IMPORTANT: This course unit outline applies only to 2014-15. It is subject to minor
adjustments in future years.

FACULTY OF HUMANITIES
SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES

POLITICS
COURSE UNIT OUTLINE 2014/15

POLI30051 PLURALISM, DEMOCRACY, AND CITIZENSHIP
Semester: 1
Credits: 20

Lecturer and Tutor: Dr. Stephanie Collins
Room: Arthur Lewis Building, floor 4, room 4.003
Telephone: 0161 306 8028 (from Arthur Lewis Building reception: 68028)
Email: [email protected]
Office Hours: Wednesdays 11-12; Thursdays 10-11.
Drop by in these times. Email for an appointment outside these times. I do not use SOHOL.

Lectures: Mondays, 4pm-6pm, Kilburn 1.4
Tutorials: Allocate yourself to a tutorial group using the Student System

Mode of Assessment: Reading reviews (x2), essay, exam.

Reading Week: 27th – 31st October 2014
Administrators: Guro Buchanan, [email protected] 0161 306 690

Chantel Riley, [email protected] 0161 275 2499

UG Office G.001 Arthur Lewis Building

_________________________________________________________________________

***IMPORTANT INFORMATION – PLEASE READ***

Assessment Weighting Deadline

Reading Review1 5% 350 words Monday 3 November

Essay 30% 2100 words Monday 17 November

Reading Review 2 5% 350 words Monday 8 December

Exam 60% 2 hours January Exam Period

Communication: Students must read their University e-mails regularly, as important
information will be communicated in this way.

Examination period: 12.01.2015 - 23.01.2015

Re-sit Examination period: 24.08.2015 - 04.09.2015

IMPORTANT: This course unit outline applies only to 2014-15. It is subject to minor
adjustments in future years.

Organization
There will be one two-hour lecture per week and one one-hour tutorial per week.

Course Content
Many contemporary liberal democratic societies are punctuated by pluralism: people from
different cultural, ethnic, and religious backgrounds live together in those societies, with
different plans and values, and they disagree strongly and sometimes violently about many
political decisions. This course examines philosophical debates that attempt to resolve the
issue of pluralism among citizens in liberal democratic societies. We will address such
issues as democratic representation, group rights, religious vs. secular schooling, the
assimilation of immigrants, and gender rights vs. cultural autonomy.

Course Aims
The aims of this module are to:

• Expose students to the most important and innovative arguments regarding pluralism
in democracies that have been made in analytic Anglophone philosophy in the last
several decades.

• Equip students with the skills necessary to understand and critically analyse
philosophical texts relating to pluralism in democracies.

• Help students to draw their own conclusions regarding democratic and multicultural
theory, and the relationship of this theory to specific practical public policy issues.

Course Outcomes
By the end of the course, students will be able to:

• Employ a rigorous analytical approach to critically evaluate the main arguments
regarding the normative tensions between equal citizenship and pluralism.

• Use analytic philosophical reasoning to draw their own conclusions about how
contemporary liberal democracies should accommodate the claims made by cultural,
religious, ethnic, and linguistic minorities.

• Discuss political movements and policies in terms of their underlying theoretical
assumptions.

Employability
POLI30051 equips students with the theoretical background necessary to expertly engage in
policy debates around multiculturalism, immigration, religion, and so on. Such debates arise
for those working in the government and third sectors, whether in the UK or abroad.
More generally, a degree in politics and international relations gives you many useful
transferable skills including:

• the ability to research, source and examine information thoroughly;
• the ability to critically analyse evidence and construct coherent arguments;
• excellent written and oratory skills;
• intellectual independence and autonomy;
• team working skills;
• a flexible and open-minded approach to work.
Examples of the types of jobs a Politics and IR degree might be relevant for can be found
here: http://www.prospects.ac.uk/options_politics_international_relations.htm
Additional support can be found here:

IMPORTANT: This course unit outline applies only to 2014-15. It is subject to minor
adjustments in future years.

http://www.careers.manchester.ac.uk/students/employable/skills/
Details of how Manchester Politics graduates do can be found here:
http://www.manchester.ac.uk/undergraduate/courses/search2014/atoz/course/?code=00675
&pg=6

Course Overview
Week 1 (22 Sep): Introduction; Why Pluralism?
Week 2 (29 Sep): Group Rights: Liberal Arguments
Week 3 (6 Oct): Group Rights: Communitarian Arguments
Week 4 (13 Oct): Against Group Rights
Week 5 (20 Oct): Nationalism and Assimilation
Week 6 (27 Oct): READING WEEK - Use this time to write your essay and reading review!
Week 7 (3 Nov): Pluralism and Collective Responsibility

Reading Review 1: DUE 3 NOVEMBER
Week 8 (10 Nov): Practical Issues 1: Descriptive Representation
Week 9 (17 Nov): Practical Issues 2: ‘Illiberal’ Cultural Practices
Week 10 (24 Nov): Practical Issues 3: Language Rights and Religious Schools

Essay: DUE 17 NOVEMBER
Week 11 (1 Dec): Practical Issues 4: Free Speech
Week 12 (8 Dec): Exam Preparation

Reading Review 2: DUE 8 DECEMBER
Exam: JANUARY EXAM PERIOD

Essay: Please answer one of the following questions, drawing on arguments found in
readings for this course:

1. Does a commitment to liberal values entail a commitment to group-differentiated
rights?

2. Should some policies aim to protect groups, rather than just the individual members
of groups?

3. What result does Will Kymlicka’s theory give on one contemporary contested
example of group-differentiated rights (where this example is not discussed by
Kymlicka)? Does his theory give the right result on this example?

The essay is worth 30% of your final grade. Assessed essays must be submitted online via
Turnitin by 2pm on Monday 17 November 2014. Essays should be 2,100 words in length,
plus or minus 210 words (word counts outside this range will be penalized). You must
indicate your word count at the end of the essay. You must not put your name anywhere on
your essay. Regulations and guidelines concerning word counts, referencing and
bibliography, late submission, deadline extensions, and plagiarism are set out in the Politics
Guide Part 2.

Reading Reviews: You must complete two reviews of recommended or further (not
required) readings.

• These reviews will be of a journal article, or of one chapter of a book
• Each review should be 350 words long, plus or minus 35 words (word counts outside

the 315 to 385 range will be penalized).
• The first reading review is due by 2pm on Monday 3 November. This review must

be of one recommended or further (not required!) reading that is listed under any of
Weeks 1 to 5 - from “Introduction; Why Pluralism?” to “Nationalism and Assimilation.”

IMPORTANT: This course unit outline applies only to 2014-15. It is subject to minor

adjustments in future years.

(You may not review Berlin's 'Pursuit of the Ideal,' as there is a sample review on
this.) This review will aid your thinking in your essay. However, you may not
reproduce your review in your essay: TurnItIn will pick up on this and it will be self-
plagiarism.
• The second review is due by 2pm on Monday 8 December. This review must be of
one recommended or further (not required!) reading that is listed under any of Weeks
7 to 11 of the course - from “Democratic Representation” to “Practical Issues 4: Free
Speech.” This review will aid your thinking in your exam preparation. However, you
may not reproduce your review in your exam: the exam questions will not be on a
specific argument in a further reading, so: (a) it won’t help you answer the exam
question, and (b) it’ll be obvious that you’ve done it. (And it will be self-plagiarism.)
• The purpose of the reading reviews is to get you thinking carefully, analytically, and
critically about specific arguments. They should include a brief summary of the
author’s views, and two or three things that you found problematic about the reading.
This may be an objection to the author’s argument, or it may just be some aspect/s of
the reading (e.g. a concept or distinction the author employs) that you found difficult.
• Ideally, you should not refer to anything other than the reading you are reviewing. If
you must consult other material (e.g. in order to better understand the author’s
argument, or some terms they are using), then you must cite that other material (this
includes lecture notes). However, simply citing material will not get marks in itself. I
want to see close reading and attention to the specific arguments made in the
specific piece that you are reviewing. The vast majority of reading reviews (including
those that get top marks) will contain only one reference list entry: an entry for the
reviewed piece itself.
• Do not simply repeat lecture material. This is (a) plagiarism and (b) boring.

Exam: The exam is worth 60% of your final grade. The exam will be two hours long. You will
be required to answer two essay questions from seven provided. Sample exam questions
will be distributed at the final lecture.

Tutorials: You are required to participate actively in weekly tutorials, in which the required
readings will be discussed. If you know in advance that circumstances beyond your control
will prevent you from attending a tutorial, you should email me as soon as possible. Please
refer to the Course Unit Guide Part 2, in the Undergraduate Office, for standards expected.

Feedback
The School of Social Sciences is committed to providing timely and appropriate feedback to
students on their academic progress and achievement, thereby enabling students to reflect
on their progress and plan their academic and skills development effectively. Students are
reminded that feedback is necessarily responsive: only when a student has done a certain
amount of work and approaches us with it at the appropriate fora is it possible for us to
feed back on the student’s work. The main forms of feedback on this course will be:

• Comments on reading reviews. These comments will be aimed at helping you to
summaries and provide insightful objections to philosophical argument. As the
reviews are mini-essays, this should help you immensely for the essay and exam.

• Comments on assessed essay. The essay is an extended, sustained argument.
Comments here will help you with the structure, content, and style of your exam
essays -- as well as future written work within and beyond university.

IMPORTANT: This course unit outline applies only to 2014-15. It is subject to minor
adjustments in future years.

• Verbal comments provided during lectures and tutorials, in response to students’
contributions. (Note: in order to take advantage of this form of feedback, you have to
contribute!)

• Discussion with students about lectures, tutorials, and readings during the lecturer’s
office hours, via email, and before or after lectures and tutorials.

Readings
Most of the readings on this reading list, and all required readings, are available online or will
be posted to Blackboard. Some will require you to go to the library to find a book. If you have
tried all the methods below and still have trouble accessing readings, please contact me.

If it is a journal article:
The quickest way is to search Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com). Type in the title
and it will bring up the link to the online e-journal site for that article. There are a number
of e-journal sites and all look a bit different. Look for something like ‘institutional login’ or
‘Shibboleth’ login, and log in using your Manchester username and password to get access.
For accessing nearly all e-readings you will need your Manchester username and password.
(The University uses the system called ‘Shibboleth’. There is another called ‘Athens’ – make
sure you don’t try to log in through this as it won’t work.)

If it is a book:
Search the online library catalogue. There will be a direct link from the result page of the
book to the online version, accessible from any computer provided you know your
Manchester username and password. Sometimes there will be no online version, and you
will have to go to the library to get the book.

If the reading list says it is on Blackboard: Check Blackboard.

If it is anything else: Google it.

22 Sep: Week 1: Introduction; Why Pluralism?
What is pluralism? Why think that society should try to accommodate a diversity of ways of
life?

Recommended Reading:
• Isaiah Berlin, The Crooked Timber of Humanity. John Murray Publishers, 1990.
Chapter 1. On Blackboard.

Further Reading:
On arguments from scepticism:

• Brian Barry, Justice as Impartiality. Clarendon Press, 1996. Chapter 7.
On arguments from value pluralism:

• Isaiah Berlin, The Crooked Timber of Humanity. John Murray Publishers, 1990.
Chapter 2.

• Joseph Raz, The Morality of Freedom. Clarendon Press, 1986. Chapters 13, 14, 15.
[Note: if you choose to review this, do just one of the three chapters.]

On arguments from reasonableness:
• John Rawls, Political Liberalism. Columbia University Press, 1993. Essays II, IV, VI.
[Note: if you choose to review this, do just one of the three essays.]

IMPORTANT: This course unit outline applies only to 2014-15. It is subject to minor
adjustments in future years.

• Gerald Gaus, ‘Reasonable Pluralism and the Domain of the Political: How the
Weaknesses of John Rawls’s Political Liberalism can be Overcome by a Justificatory
Liberalism.’ Inquiry 42, 1999, 259–284.

29 Sep: Week 2: Group Rights: Liberal Arguments
What is multiculturalism? What kinds of group rights might multiculturalism imply? What is
Kymlicka’s argument for liberal multiculturalism? What is liberal neutrality? Is there such a
thing as liberal neutrality?

Required Reading:
• Will Kymlicka, Multicultural Citizenship. Clarendon Press, 1995. Chapter Five.
Available online through University library website.
• Ronald Dworkin ‘Liberalism’ in Dworkin, A Matter of Principle. Harvard University
Press, 1985. On Blackboard.

Recommended Reading:
• Will Kymlicka, ‘Two Models of Pluralism & Tolerance’ in Heyd (ed) Toleration. Also
available at <http://analyse-und-kritik.net/1992-1/AK_Kymlicka_1992.pdf>.
• Carl Knight . “Liberal Multiculturalism Reconsidered.” Politics 24 (3), 2004, 189-97.
• John Tomasi, ‘Kymlicka, Liberalism, and Respect for Cultural Minorities.’ Ethics
105,1995, 580-603.
• Avishai Margalit and Moshe Halbertal, ‘Liberalism and the Right to Culture.’ Social
Research 61, 1994, 491-510.
• George Sher, ‘The Principle of Neutrality’ in Sher, Beyond Neutrality: Perfectionism
and Politics. Cambridge University Press, 1997.

Further Reading:
• Simon Caney, ‘Consequentialist Defences of Liberal Neutrality.’ The Philosophical
Quarterly 41, 1991, 457-477.
• Rainer Forst, ‘Toleration, Justice and Reason’ in McKinnon and Castiglione (eds),
The Culture of Toleration in Diverse Societies. Manchester University Press, 2003.
• Jurgen Habermas, ‘Struggles for Recognition in the Democratic Constitutional State’
in Gutmann (ed.), Multiculturalism.
• Will Kymlicka, ‘Do We Need a Liberal Theory of Minority Rights?’ Constellations 4,
1997, 72-87.
• Colin MacLeod, ‘Liberal Neutrality or Liberal Tolerance?’ Law and Philosophy 16,
1997, 529-559.
• Will Kymlicka, ‘Liberal Individualism and Liberal Neutrality’ Ethics 99, 1989, 883-905.

6 Oct: Week 3: Group Rights: Communitarian Arguments
What is communitarianism? What do communitarians see as wrong with liberal
multiculturalism? What is the role of culture in our lives?

Required Reading:
• Charles Taylor, ‘The Politics of Recognition’ in Gutmann (ed.), Multiculturalism:
Examining the Politics of Recognition. Princeton University Press, 1994. On
Blackboard.
Also in:

IMPORTANT: This course unit outline applies only to 2014-15. It is subject to minor
adjustments in future years.

Taylor, Philosophical Arguments. Harvard University Press, 1995.
Also in:
Goldberg (ed.) Multiculturalism: A Critical Reader. Blackwell, 1994.
• Vernon Van Dyke, ‘The Individual, the State, and Ethnic Communities in
Political Theory’ in Kymlicka (ed.), The Rights of Minority Cultures. Oxford
University Press, 1995.

Recommended Reading:
• Gutmann (ed.), Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition. [Note: if
you choose to review this, do just one of the chapters.]
• Caney, Simon, 1992, ‘Liberalism and Communitarianism: A Misconceived
Debate’, Political Studies, (June): 273–90.
• Killmister, Suzy (2011). Group-Differentiated Rights and the Problem of
Membership. Social Theory and Practice 37 (2):227-255.
• Réaume, Denise ‘Individuals, Groups, and Rights to Public Goods’, University of
Toronto Law Journal, 1988, 38 (1), 1–27.
• Waldron, J. (1993) ‘Can Communal Goods be Human Rights?’, in Liberal Rights.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 339–69.

Further Reading:
• Lawrence Blum, ‘Recognition, Value and Equality: A Critique of Charles Taylor’s
and Nancy Fraser’s Accounts of Multiculturalism,’ in Willett (ed.), Theorizing
Multiculturalism: A Guide to the Current Debate. Blackwell, 1998.
• Mulhall, Stephen and Swift, Adam. Liberals and Communitarians, second edition.
[Note: if you choose to review this, do just one of the chapters.]
• Bhikhu Parekh, Rethinking Multiculturalism. Macmillan, 2000. Esp. chs 9–10.
[Note: if you choose to review this, do just one of the chapters.]
• Michael Walzer, On Toleration. Yale University Press, 1999. [Note: if you choose
to review this, do just one of the chapters.]
• Michael Sandel, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Second edition. Cambridge
University Press, 1998. [Note: if you choose to review this, do just one of the
chapters.]

13 Oct: Week 4: Arguments Against Group Rights
Does it make sense to think of group rights as over and above individuals’ rights? Can
individualistic rights and liberties achieve all necessary accommodation of pluralism? Is
political or socio-economic equality a more important focus than culture when it comes to the
politics of pluralism?

Required Reading:
• Chandran Kukathas, ‘Are There Any Cultural Rights?’ Political Theory 20, 1992, 105-
39.
• Brian Barry, ‘The Limits of Cultural Politics.’ Review of International Studies 24, 1998,
307-319.

Recommended Reading:

IMPORTANT: This course unit outline applies only to 2014-15. It is subject to minor
adjustments in future years.

• Brian Barry, Culture and Equality: An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism. Harvard
University Press, 2001. [Note: if you choose to review this, do just one of the
chapters.]

• Nancy Fraser, ‘From Redistribution to Recognition? Dilemmas of Justice in a ‘Post-
Socialist’ Age.’ New Left Review I/212, 1995, 68–93. Available at
<http://newleftreview.org/I/212/nancy-fraser-from-redistribution-to-recognition-
dilemmas-of-justice-in-a-post-socialist-age>.

• Nancy Fraser, ‘Social Justice in the Age of Identity Politics: redistribution,
Recognition, and Participation’

• Paul Kelly (ed), Multiculturalism Reconsidered. Polity, 2002. [Note: if you choose to
review this, do just one of the chapters.]

• Will Kymlicka, ‘The Rights of Minority Cultures: Reply to Kukathas.’ Political Theory
20, 1992, 140-6.

• Chandran Kukathas, ‘Cultural Rights Again: A Rejoinder to Kymlicka.’ Political
Theory 20, 1992, 674-80.

Further Reading:
• Chandran Kukathas. The Liberal Archipelago. Oxford University Press, 2003. [Note:
if you choose to review this, do just one of the chapters.]
• Chandran Kukathas, ‘Liberalism and Multiculturalism: The Politics of Indifference’
Political Theory 26, 1998, 686-699.
• Saladin Meckled-Garcia, ‘Toleration and Neutrality: Incompatible Ideals?’ Res
Publica, 7, 2001, 293-313.
• Joseph Raz, ‘Multiculturalism: A Liberal Perspective.’ Dissent Winter, 1994, 67-79.
• Simon Caney, ‘Consequentialist Defences of Liberal Neutrality.’ The Philosophical
Quarterly 41, 1991, 457-477.
• Elle Kedourie, Nationalism. Fourth edition. Blackwell, 2000. [Note: if you choose to
review this, do just one of the chapters.]
• James Tully, ‘Struggles over Recognition and Distribution.’ Constellations 7, 2000,
469-482.
• Jeremy Waldron, ‘Cultural Identity and Civic Responsibility’ in Kymlicka and Norman
(eds), Citizenship in Diverse Societies. Oxford University Press, 2000.

20 Oct: Week 5: Nationalism and Assimilation
What is a ‘nation’? Should we be aiming for social cohesion at the expense of diversity? To
what extent would this be possible at the level of the nation-state? Does pluralism suggest a
right of secession in some cases?

Required Reading:
• Avishai Margalit and Joseph Raz, ‘National Self-Determination.’ Journal of
Philosophy 87, 1990, 439-461.
• Varun Uberoi and Tariq Modood, ‘Inclusive Britishness: A Multiculturalist Advance.’
Political Studies, 61, 2013, 23-41.
• Roger Scruton, ‘Should Countries Be More Like Families?’ BBC: A Point of View, 30
August 2013. Available at: <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23895920>.

Recommended Reading:
• Essays in McKim and McMahan (eds), The Morality of Nationalism. Oxford University
Press, 1997. [Note: if you choose to review this, do just one of the chapters.]

IMPORTANT: This course unit outline applies only to 2014-15. It is subject to minor
adjustments in future years.

• Andrew Mason, ‘Political Community, Liberal-Nationalism and the Ethics of
Assimilation,’ Ethics 109, 1999, 261–286.

Further Reading:
• Couture, Nielsen, and Seymour (eds), Rethinking Nationalism, Canadian Journal of
Philosophy, Supplement 22, 1998. [Note: if you choose to review this, do just one of
the article.]
• David Miller, On Nationality. Oxford University Press, 1995. [Note: if you choose to
review this, do just one of the chapters.]
• Martha Nussbaum et al, For Love of Country? Beacon Press, 2010. [Note: if you
choose to review this, do just one of the chapters.]
• Chaim Gans, ‘Nationalism and Immigration.’ Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 1,
1998, 159-180.

27 Oct: Week 6: READING WEEK
**Use the rest of reading week to write your first reading review, plan your essay, revise
notes, and do further reading.

3 Nov: Week 7: Pluralism and Collective Responsibility
**Reading Review 1 is due on Monday 3 November
Given pluralism, can we possibly all share responsibility for what our state does? Is ‘sharing
in our state’s actions’ perhaps what unites us as citizens? If so, how can we make sense of
this? For example, how are ordinary Britons—in all their plurality—jointly responsible for the
UK’s involvement in the Iraq War?

Required Reading:
• Gilbert, Margaret. 2006. “Who’s to Blame? Collective Moral Responsibility and its
Implications for Group Members.” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 30(1), 94–114.
• Pasternak, Avia. 2011. “Sharing the Costs of Political Injustices.” Politics, Philosophy
& Economics 10(2), 188–210.

Recommended Reading:
• Feinberg, Joel. 1968. “Collective Responsibility.” Journal of Philosophy 65, 674–688.
• Erskine, Toni. 2001. “Assigning Responsibilities to Institutional Moral Agents: the
Case of States and Quasi-states”. Ethics and International Affairs 15(2): 67–89.
• Stilz, Anna. 2011. “Collective Responsibility and the State”. Journal of Political
Philosophy 19: 190–208.
• May, Larry and Hoffman, Stacey (eds.) 1992. Collective Responsibility: Five Decades
of Debate in Theoretical and Applied Ethics. Rowman & Littlefield. [Note: if you
choose to review this, do just one of the chapters.]
• Miller, David. 2004. “Holding Nations Responsible.” Ethics 114, 240–268.
• Thompson, Janna. 2002. Taking Responsibility for the Past: Reparations and
Historical Injustice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Further Reading
• Arrow, Kenneth. 1963. Social Choice and Individual Values. Second edition. New
Haven: Yale University Press.
• Copp, David. 2007. “The Collective Moral Autonomy Thesis.” Journal of Social
Philosophy 38(3), 369–388.

IMPORTANT: This course unit outline applies only to 2014-15. It is subject to minor
adjustments in future years.

• Pettit, Philip. 2007. “Responsibility Incorporated.” Ethics 117, 141–201.
• May, Larry. 1992. Sharing Responsibility. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• May, Larry and Robert Strikwerda. 1994. “Men in Groups: Collective

Responsibility for Rape.” Hypatia 9, 134–151.
• Larry May. 2006. “State Aggression, Collective Liability, and Individual Mens Rea”.

Midwest Studies in Philosophy XXX: 309–324.

10 Nov: Week 8: Practical Issues 1: Descriptive Representation
What do we understand by democratic representation? Can representatives adequately
represent the diverse and numerous interests and viewpoints of citizens? Should
representative democracy provide special treatment to some groups? Can we assume that
all members of a minority group will share similar interests?

Required Reading:
• Suzanne Dovi, ‘Preferable Descriptive Representatives: Or Will Just Any Woman,
Black, or Latino Do?’ American Political Science Review 96, 2002, 729-743.
• Jane Mansbridge, ‘Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women?
A Contingent “Yes”.’ Journal of Politics 61, 1999, 628-657.

Recommended Reading:
• Linda Alcoff, ‘The Problem of Speaking for Others.’ Cultural Critique Winter, 1991, 5–
32.
• Mark Brown, ‘Survey Article: Citizen Panels and the Concept of
Representation.’ Journal of Political Philosophy 14, 2006, 203–225.
• Nadia Urbinati and Mark E. Warren, ‘The Concept of Representation in
Contemporary Democratic Theory.’ Annual Review of Political Science 11, 2008,
387-412.
• Jane Mansbridge, ‘Rethinking Representation.’ American Political Science Review
97, 2003, 515-528.
• Iris Marion Young, ‘Representation and Social Perspectives’ in Young, Inclusion and
Democracy. Oxford University Press, 2000.

Further Reading:
• Anne Phillips, The Politics of Presence. Oxford University Press, 1995.
• Anne Phillips, ‘The Politicisation of Difference: Does this Make for a More
Intolerant Society?’ in Horton and Mendus (eds), Toleration, Identity and
Difference. Macmillan, 1999.
• Hanna Fenichel Pitkin. The Concept of Representation. University of California,
1967. [Note: if you choose to review this, do just one of the chapters. I suggest
Chapter 1.]
• David Runciman. ‘The Paradox of Political Representation.’ Journal of Political
Philosophy 15, 2007, 93–114.
• Michael Saward, ‘Authorisation and Authenticity: Representation and the
Unelected.’ Journal of Political Philosophy 17, 2009, 1-22.
• Melissa Williams, ‘The Uneasy Alliance of Group Representation and Deliberative
Democracy’ in Kymlicka & Norman (eds), Citizenship in Diverse Societies. Oxford
University Press, 2000.

IMPORTANT: This course unit outline applies only to 2014-15. It is subject to minor
adjustments in future years.

• Iris Marion Young, ‘Difference as a Resource for Democratic Communication’ in
Estlund (ed.), Democracy. Blackwell, 2001.

**The Assessed Essay is due on Monday 17 November
17 Nov: Week 9: Practical Issues 2: ‘Illiberal’ Cultural Practices
What are we to do when minority groups engage in practices that offend against
fundamental liberal political ideals? Can neutrality, accommodation, and recognition extend
to such practices? What does it take for a practice to offend against liberal ideals?

Required Reading:
• Susan Moller Okin, ‘Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?’ in Okin, Cohen, Howard and
Nussbaum (eds), Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women? Princeton University Press,
1999. On Blackboard.
• Yael Tamir, ‘Hands Off Clitoridectomy.’ Boston Review, 21, 1996. Available online at
<http://new.bostonreview.net/BR21.3/Tamir.html>.

Recommended Reading:
• Other chapters in Okin, Cohen, Howard and Nussbaum (eds), Is Multiculturalism Bad
for Women? (Esp. the chapter by Parekh.) [Note: if you choose to review this, do just
one of the chapters.]
• Alison Jaggar, “Globalizing Feminist Ethics,” Hypatia 13(2), 1998, 7-31.

Further Reading
• Cecile Leborde, ‘Secular Philosophy and Muslim Headscarves in Schools.’ Journal of
Political Philosophy 13, 2005, 305-329.
• Jeff Spinner-Halev, ‘Feminism, Multiculturalism, Oppression and the State.’ Ethics
112, 2001, 84-113.
• Clare Chambers, ‘Are Breast Implants Better than Female Genital Mutilation?
Autonomy, Gender Equality and Nussbaum’s Political Liberalism.’ Critical Review of
International Social and Political Philosophy 7, 2004, 1-33.
• Martha Nussbaum, ‘Women and Cultural Universals’ in Nussbaum, Sex and Social
Justice. Oxford University Press, 1999.
• Ayelet Shachar, ‘Group Identity and Women’s Rights in Family Law: The Perils of
Multicultural Accommodation.’ Journal of Political Philosophy 6, 1998, 285-305.
• Jeff Spinner-Halev, ‘Feminism, Multiculturalism, Oppression and the State.’ Ethics
112, 2001, 84-113.

24 Nov: Week 10: Practical Issues 3: Language Rights and Religious Schools
How should the state choose its official language(s)? Should the state provide funding for
the preservation of minority languages or for the practicing of religions? If so, how should it
choose which ones to support?

Required Reading:
• Alan Patten, ‘Survey Article: The Justification of Minority Language Rights.’
Journal of Political Philosophy 71, 2009, 102-128.
• Peter Jones, ‘Bearing the Consequences of Belief.’ Journal of Political Philosophy
2, 1994, 24-34.

Recommended Reading:

IMPORTANT: This course unit outline applies only to 2014-15. It is subject to minor
adjustments in future years.

Language
• Kymlicka and Patten (eds), Language Rights and Political Theory. Oxford
University Press, 2003.
• Alan Patten, ‘Political Theory and Language Policy,’ Political Theory 5, 2001, 691-
715.
• Alan Patten, ‘Liberal Neutrality and Language Policy,’ Philosophy and Public
Affairs 4, 2003, 356-386.
• Hillel Steiner, ‘Double-Counting Inequalities,’ Politics, Philosophy, and Economics
2, 2003, 129-134.
• Philip van Parijs, ‘Linguistic Justice,’ Politics, Philosophy, and Economics 1, 2002,
59-74.
• Ellis, Anthony. ‘Minority rights and the preservation of languages.’ Philosophy 80,
2005, 199-217.

Religious Schooling
• Stephen Macedo, Diversity and Distrust: Civic Education in a Multicultural
Democracy. Harvard University Press, 2000. [Note: if you choose to review this,
do just one of the chapters.]
• Eamonn Callan, ‘Discrimination and Religious Schooling’ in Kymlicka and
Norman (eds), Citizenship in Diverse Societies. Oxford University Press, 2000.
• Jeff Spinner-Halev, ‘Extending Diversity: Religion in Public and Private Education’
in Kymlicka & Norman (eds), Citizenship in Diverse Societies.
• Susan Mendus, ‘Toleration and Recognition: Education in a Multicultural Society’
Journal of Philosophy of Education 29, 1995, 97-106.

1 Dec: Week 11: Practical Issues 4: Free Speech
To what extent should the accommodation of pluralism extend to the accommodation of
offensive, untrue, hateful, or blasphemous speech? Should we clamp down on hate speech
but not on blasphemy? Should we legislate against incitement but not swearing? What
principles might justify such policies?

Required Reading:
• Susan J. Brison, ‘The Autonomy Defense of Free Speech.’ Ethics 108, 1998, 312-
339.
• David Braddon-Mitchell and Caroline West, ‘What is Free Speech?’ Journal of
Political Philosophy 12, 2004, 437–460.

Recommended Reading:
• John Stuart Mill, On Liberty. J.W. Parker and Son, 1859. Chapter 2.
• Ishani Maitra and Mary Kate McGowan (eds), Speech and Harm: Controversies over
Free Speech. Oxford University Press, 2012. [Note: if you choose to review this, do
just one of the chapters.]
• Catriona Mackinnon, ‘Should We Tolerate Holocaust Denial?’ Res Publica 13, 2007,
9-28.
• Jonathan K. Miles, ‘A Perfectionist Defense of Free Speech.’ Social Theory and
Practice 38, 2012, 213–230.
• John Horton, ‘The Satanic Verses Controversy: A Brief Introduction’ in Horton (ed.),
Liberalism, Multiculturalism and Toleration. Macmillan, 1993.

IMPORTANT: This course unit outline applies only to 2014-15. It is subject to minor
adjustments in future years.

Further Reading:
• Catherine Mackinnon, ‘Not a Moral Issue’ and ‘Francis Biddle's Sister: Pornography,
Civil Rights, and Speech’, in MacKinnon, Feminism Unmodified (Harvard University
Press, 1987).
• Ronald Dworkin, ‘Two Concepts of Liberty’ in Ullmann-Margalit and Margalit (eds),
Berlin: A Celebration. Hogarth Press, 1991.
• Caroline West, ‘The Free Speech Argument Against Pornography.’ Canadian Journal
of Philosophy 33, 2003, 391-422.
• T. M. Scanlon, ‘A Theory of Freedom of Expression’ in Scanlon, The Difficulty of
Tolerance. Cambridge University Press, 2003.
• Glen Newey, “Fatwa or Fiction: Censorship and Toleration”, in Horton and Nicholson
(eds), Toleration: Philosophy and Practice. Ashgate, 1992.
• Ronald Dworkin, ‘Free Speech, Politics and the Dimensions of Democracy’ in
Dworkin, Sovereign Virtue. Harvard University Press, 2000.
• Peter Jones, ‘Respecting Beliefs and Rebuking Rushdie’ in Horton and Nicholson
(eds) Toleration: Philosophy and Practice and Horton (ed) Liberalism,
Multiculturalism and Toleration.
• Jeremy Waldron, ‘Rushdie and Religion’ in Waldron, Liberal Rights: Collected
Papers. Cambridge University Press, 1993.

**Reading Review 2 is due on Monday 8 December
8 Dec: Week 12: Exam Prep
The lecture slot this week will involve a short presentation on exam preparation and an
opportunity for you to ask questions about the exam.
Tutorials on Free Speech will run this week.