Part One: Identifications. 20 pts x 5 IDs = 100 points

For each of the five concepts below, please provide a brief explanation in your own

words describing what the term means.

Please provide an example from our course materials (readings, lectures, slides) that

provide an illustration of each concept.

When providing each definition, please define the concept in general, in your own

words. When providing an example, you can then use a particular thinker/text to

illustrate how the concept has been conceptualized/applied in a particular context.

1.) Civil Society vs. Political State

2.) State of Nature

3.) Division of Labor (DOL)

4.) Democratic Unfreedom

5.) Tyrannical Power Part Two: Short Essays. 100 pts. x 2 Short Essays = 200 points

Please respond to two of the three prompts below in a short-essay format.
Please make your response approximately 4-5 paragraphs.
Please include two specific examples from our course materials that help illustrate
or provide evidence for your response to each short essay prompt.
Please include direct textual evidence when responding to each short essay prompt.
Please provide brief citation information (last name and page numbers).
Play to your strengths, best of luck, and happy reflecting

In the first half of our course, we have been exploring the ways in which various theories
of human nature go on to influence political analyses, including the real and potential
strengths and limitations of particular governmental structures and power relations.
Please compare Locke and one other thinker/text that we have examined in Weeks
1-4 and reflect upon the following:

 What assumptions about human nature does each thinker make (explicitly or
implicitly)?

 Given these assumptions about human nature, how does each thinker
conceptualize the relationship between individuals and society?

 According to each thinker, what is the proper role of the political sphere relative
to individuals and/or societies? In other words, what is the political sphere meant
to accomplish?

 What, if any, critiques of previous or currently existing political relations does
each thinker make? In other words, do the thinkers find minor or major flaws in
certain political structures/relations?

 Do you find one thinker more persuasive than the other? If so, why? If not, do
you find them equally persuasive? Equally unpersuasive? (Please note: This final
portion of prompt #1 has no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answers – I like to provide a space
for folks to have their own personal say on our materials!

2.) A number of the thinkers that we have explored thus far have provided an assessment of
democracy and/or democratic political structures/power relations. Some thinkers find
democratic political arrangements promising, while others argue that democracy is not an
ideal form for good governing. Still others seem to champion democratic political
arrangements in theory, while highlighting the historical or current weaknesses or
limitations of democratic arrangements as they have been organized in real-life practice.
Please compare Plato with one other thinker/text who analyzes hypothetical or
actual democratic political arrangements and reflect upon the following:

 How do each of the thinkers conceptualize what democratic forms of
politics/governance look like? That is, what assumptions about democracy –
what, specifically democracy is, how it is organized, what it looks like in action –
do the thinkers make?

 What real or potential strengths and limitations do each of the thinkers
discuss in terms of democratic political relations? In other words, what does
democracy have going for it as a form of political governance? What weaknesses
or flaws does democracy present? Are there additional variables (educational,
economic, race/gender/sex/etc., inequalities) that strengthen or weaken
democracies? Do the thinkers compare democracy with other forms of
government (including other versions of real or potential democracy)? If so, how
do each of the authors assess democracy relative to other forms of political
governance?

 Do you find one thinker more persuasive than the other? If so, why? If not, do
you find them equally persuasive? Equally unpersuasive? (Please note: This final
portion of prompt #2 has no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answers – I like to provide a space
for folks to have their own personal say on our materials!)

3.) A central theme that scholars of political power analyze is the relationship between so-
called ‘private’ spheres and ‘public’ (political) spheres of social life. Some contend that
there is a relatively strict demarcation between private and public practices and interests,
while others argue that there is in fact a great deal of overlap between private and public
spheres.
Please compare Marx and one other thinker/text who considers the relationship
between the private and the public realms of social life and reflect upon the
following:

 According to each text, what, if anything, distinguishes the private sphere(s)
from the public/political sphere(s) in society? What, if anything, distinguishes
the private from the public/political? Is there a significant distinction? If so,
why? If not, why not?

 What is the actual or ideal relationship between the private and the public
realm, according to the texts under consideration? In other words, how do
private and public realms relate to one another? Are their roles or goals
complementary? Do their roles and goals conflict in minor or major ways? If the
private and public realms are/can be complementary, how exactly? If the private
and public realms are in some degree of conflict with each other, why is that?

 Do the texts argue that one or the other realm – private or public – takes
precedence over the other? Do (or should) the roles and goals of one sphere take
priority over the other? If so, why? Or, are the practices and interests of private
and public spheres equally significant? If so, why?

 In light of the first three parts of this prompt, to your estimation, what is the
purpose of politics with respect to the relationship between private and public
spheres? What is politics supposed to be concerned with? To what end(s)?
(Please note: This final portion of prompt #3 has no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answers –