Welcome! This course tells a simple story. It is about the evolution of a novel form of political organization known as the modern nation-state. By “modernity,” I mean a revolution in social development that is based upon skeptical attitudes, individualistic identities, formal routines, and distinct social realms. By “nation-state,” I mean a “symbolic community to which people voluntarily devote their primary political loyalties despite the many particularistic loyalties–religious, cultural, ethnic, political, social, economic, and athletic–that otherwise divide them.” These are abstract terms, but you’ll see what I mean by them as we proceed through the semester.
My story is divided into five interlocking chapters, all of which are available on the links above and to the right of this page. First, in the segment called “Modernity,” I introduce you to some basic concepts about the modern nation-state. Second, we travel down the road the West has taken toward this entity: “Liberalism.” Third, we consider an initially credible but ultimately failed path: “Marxism-Leninism.” Fourth, we confront the pathos and anger of the “postcolonial” world. Finally, we return to our starting point to examine the fortunes of the nation-state in an age of seeming “globalization.” For a simple flow chart of our progress, look HERE . And for the basic requirements of the course, look HERE, as well as in the column to the right of this page. As the semester develops, I will refer to whatever current events and spectacles seem useful to our journey. Will Fidel Castro make it through the semester? What about Kim Jong-Il? Everything and everyone is fair game!
I have four pedagogical goals. I hope to cultivate your understanding of different social and political phenomena by focusing on ”deep knowing” rather than “much knowing”; to develop your analytical abilities; to refine your capacity to defend arguments and persuade others; and to encourage you to develop a critical perspective on everything you think you know.
Finally, I have a modest personal objective. If I can fundamentally change the way you think about world politics, I shall be pleased.
PLEASE NOTE: The use of electronic devices of any kind, including laptops, cell phones, and personal digital devices, is prohibited in my classroom!
Greetings! Feel free to post any questions you have about the course, about Notre Dame, or even about the meaning of life. I shall do my best to respond promptly. By all means feel free to comment on each other’s posts.
AJ McAdams
p.s. Ignore the category called “Possibly related posts” above. They aren’t my posts, but I can’t get rid of them.
I saw the videos and it’s amazing that people like Gould have thought the idea of progress since the 1980′s.
Has anyone read a French writer Bernard Werber’s “The Tree of Possibles?” It is a brilliant book that can change the way one looks lives. I saw a video of him lecturing about human beings in the future-the evolved ones. Different from Kurzweil who talked about the evolution of the physicals of human beings-the singularity- Werber was talking about how our mentality will change. I don’t remember very well, but he said things like we’re only the middle point that links the monkeys (well, the past human beings) and the real human beings who are not yet in the earth. They will be able to harmonize perfectly with the nature and telepathize to communicate. This might sound crazy, but actually he’s one of the most worldly-known contemporary French writers, according to Wikipedia.
Will political institutions change? Of course. prof. McAdams said nation-state is a comparatively new concept and still there are countries which are not even nation-states. But America is facing a problem in the system with the influx of diversity, and happened to be in an awkward position to be called nation-states. Looks like it should evolve. I wish it’s toward what Werber’s expecting, to harmonization.
Priscilla,
That’s an excellent point about being in the middle of history. I guess this is one of the reasons we feel challenged in the US by dealing with immigration of new groups. But who is to say that this process will never end? Would it be possible for a nation-state, especially a liberal nation-state, to be truly harmonious?
AJM
Priscilla & Prof. McAdams,
I tried in vain to find a video of Werber on youtube, so I had to settle for his wikipedia page. He sounds like an interesting author, and I will look for him the next time I need a book. I agree that we’re in the middle of history in the sense that our world is in constant change, but I don’t see us moving towards some end, harmonization, as Werber expects.
Two of the most fundamental aspects of humanity, in my opinion, are its diversity and its state of flux. Humanity has always and, I believe will always be changing and evolving. I do not deem it impossible that we may one day harmonize with nature, but why should that be the end of our progression. What I’m trying to get at is that there are no real humans. There are only humans and what defines us as humans is our evolving and changing, which, hopefully, will always be improving our species.
By diversity I do not mean differences in ethnicity solely, but rather differences in what Prof. McAdams refers to as the particularistic loyalties that define people’s identities and lead to their unique ideas and viewpoints. Although diversity in this sense can be subordinated to the nation-state, people’s pluralistic loyalties are what make them the unique individuals who participate in a liberal nation-state and are its foundation. Therefore, as diversity denotes differences in opinions and ideologies, I do not think there can be a liberal nation-state that is truly harmonious. However, the diversity and the tolerance of differences that are present, or should be, in a modern, liberal nation-state can lead to an atmosphere of individuals agreeing to disagree and maintaining open minds that, in a way, is a harmony all of its own.
I think that we see this kind of harmony, or at least the desire for it, in some liberal nation states on occasion. However, at the risk of sounding pessimistic, I doubt that this will ever be obtained and maintained on a large scale. Do you?
- David
David,
Yes, Weber’s video will be hard to find cause what I’ve seen was when he visited South Korea for a scientific forum. I think that there are no definite human beings, as you said, is very true. Prof. McAdams said changes will be confined to as much our DNA allows but there are mutations, too, so who knows?
About the harmony…I think human beings are necessarily fit to compete, because we are results of our ancestors’ fights for survival. We are the descendants, or results, of those who killed others -various forms of lives- to survive and we still are doing the same thing to survive, disadvantaging others. Our genes are programmed to fight and be selfish. So if we can harmonize, one day, wouldn’t it be the time when no one really cares about there lives? That should be after we invented a way to overcome our nature and input a very peaceful mind to those who want to follow the nature. Or when everything’s so sufficient that we don’t have to try to survive? Haha I sound very pessimistic.
The movement of people from one country to another has occurred for centuries and has often created tension, maybe in the US it seems like an even greater problem because of the parochialness of how the majority of Americans see the world, like Prof. McAdams said in class on Wednesday. I doubt whether it is possible for a nation-state to be harmonius because individuals will always pursue self-interest. Additionally, people thrive on conflict with one another, so we need conflict in order to bring about progress.
I just wanted to comment on how I like the interactive syllabus on-line. I would point out however I think it would be nice to get the assignments that are emailed to us on the syllabus that way we do not have to dig in our mailboxes to find them (like I did).
Thanks to all three of you!
I’m glad you’re raising the issue of diversity (Mill’s chaos) with regards to the human condition. For me, there are at least two considerations:
1. People are by definition diverse. That’s the point about DNA. Recognizing this fact can be helpful because it reminds us that many other forms of diversity are not so unnatural.
2. Personally, I would hate to live in a world without diversity. If we were only around people who looked, acted, and thought like we do, life would be less fun. Also, it’s only through exposure to different things that we have the opportunity to learn about ourselves. This is one of the central teachings of Christianity.
Thanks for the compliment about the syllabus. I think we need to look for a balance on what to include on a single forum. Here’s how I envision the balance:
Rob and Charles will be conversing with you over Concourse. The three of us meet regularly to discuss the themes of each TA session. But I think it’s important that they each be able to formulate their questions in a way that suits each individual section.
Alas, I am limited in the way I can communicate with you as a class. I have to use a LISTSERVE address which can only go out over over email. I like to take advantage of the technology because if I am thinking about a topic that might interest you, I can then dash out a message quickly.
Still, I can promise you that all of the major assignments for the course will appear on the Web syllabus; indeed, probably exclusively on the syllabus.
The one thing I have to figure out now is the effectiveness of this blog. The blog requires that I approve each message separately before it can go out, so it’s a bit cumbersome.
Still I really value the opportunity to communicate with you. I may try Concourse soon to see how it compares.
Go Irish!
AJM
Dear Prof. McAdams,
Hi, I have a question about liberalism. In the NY Times article “You be Obama” the author says the “liberal way” to solve the health care problem is the government taking over the health care system. But Mill’s idea of liberalism was more like protecting freedom of expression in pursuit of truth. So I don’t understand how that liberalism is related to the current concept of liberalism when we say some organizations or people are “liberal” or not.
Priscilla
Priscilla, that’s an excellent question. I think the best way to deal with the use of the word in this context is to see it as part of a political debate. For many people, especially many conservatives, “liberalism” is simply a pejorative term to describe policies you don’t like. However, this is not the same as “liberalism” in the classical sense of the term. According to this definition, “liberalism” is the umbrella concept under which our two political tendencies (Liberalism vs. Conservatism) are subsumed. I would describe David Brooks, for example, as a thinker in the classical liberal tradition of politics who leans slightly toward Conservatism.
AJM
haha it seems like not many people are paying attention to the comments ( sad
) but I have to say I really liked “the internationale.” I listen to Billy Bragg’s version and it was fun see how the contents were different in the Korean one. One quote: “any gentility, noble ideals, nor the cross hung in the (empty) air cannot save us.” It does say how the North Koreans (I guess? or the Korean communists before the Koreas got divided) are against religions. One thing same to both : they’re very addictive 
and i don’t get why the North Koreans freaked out about you singing it. Did they think it was something like a sacrilege?
Yes, I thought you guys were obsessed with blogs and the like. But perhaps I should twitter (though, pretty long twitters)!
AJM
haha maybe not with blogging with a professor.
no offense. it’s just that we’re not “liberal” enough.
Hi, professor. I have a question about catch-all parties. Last time you said that current political parties are catch-all parties so they are flexible about their agenda. But some people keep telling me the current American parties are the most polarized since the late 1800s. I do not know what exactly is polarized, but is that because of the demographic representatives of the voters has changed? How would you explain this?