This study guide is a guide, not a contract.  All the material in the text, reader, and lectures is fair game, regardless of whether it is explicitly mentioned here.  But this guide does honestly tell you what I consider most important.

As you know, the exam will be in-class.  It will consist entirely of essay questions. You will have some choice in the essay questions, although choice will be inversely proportional to the importance of the topic.

Topics:  Gauthier, Dworkin, the communitarians (Sandel, Kymlicka, Walzer, Powers), and Marx.  The exam will consist of four questions.  One will be on Marx, one will be on communitarianism, and two will involve a choice among questions about the other theorists.  The main thing is that you should know the main conclusion (or point) of each theorist and, ideally, the basic argument he makes justifying it.

If you have the time and space, it is often useful to include appropriate information surrounding and buttressing the core answer. Please note, however, that this does not mean a "data dump" of everything you know on the subject.  When you provide irrelevant information, it tells me that you don't understand the subject of the question.

Here are some questions I'm considering re. Marx.  Since we did not have the opportunity to go over the "Gotha Program" and "18th Brumaire" readings, you will only be tested on the Manifesto reading and the "Preface" reading.

• What did Marx see as good about capitalism?
• Name some of the differences between the Marxist perspective and the classical liberal perspective.
• Distinguish the Marxist "exploitation" critique of capitalism from the Marxist "alienation" critique.
• Give an example from your own experience, one not used in class, of the "colonization of the lifeworld" (a.k.a. "mining of the lifeworld").
• Distinguish "use value" from "exchange value".  Give an example, one not used in class, of something that shows they are not the same.
• If, as economists claim, profits will be zero in a perfectly competitive economy, what does Marx mean by "surplus value"?  Where does this surplus value come from, if not from profit?  (To answer this question you will want to distinguish between "use value" and "exchange value" and to talk about the labor theory of value.)

Here are some questions I'm considering re. Gauthier.

• Gauthier tries to establish a rational (i.e., rationally self-interested) basis for social cooperation.  What is that basis?  (It will be helpful to look at the questions in the box on p.63 of the text.)
• [Look at the questions on pp.70-71 of the text.  They represent some of the attacks made against Gauthier's approach.  To what extent are they persuasive?]

Here are some questions I'm considering re. communitarianism.

• How does communitarianism differ from Marxism and/or communism?
• The same question re. classical liberalism.

Since we didn't have a chance to cover the Dworkin reading in class, it won't be covered in the exam.

Ditto for the Walzer reading.

Here are some questions I'm considering re. Sandel.

• [Look at the questions in the box on p.106 of the text, which call on you to think about central issues of Sandel's argument.]
• Sandel writes (in the reader, p.118), "...despite its philosophical force, the claim for the priority of the right over the good ultimately fails."  What does he mean by "the claim for the priority of the right over the good"?  What is his justification for saying that the claim "ultimately fails"?   You might look especially at the final section of this piece, "Our Present Predicament" (pp.123-124).

Here are some questions I'm considering re. Kymlicka.

• What is the basic point Kymlicka is trying to make in the reading (on pp.126-133 of the reader)?  What is his argument for this point?  Do you agree that classical liberalism has a hidden requirement for a particular culture, i.e., a culture of tolerance?  What does Kymlicka claim that multiculturalists lack?
• [Look at the questions in the box on p.127 of the text.  I doubt I would ask a question simply asking for your opinion, as these questions do, but they do ask you to consider the central issues Kymlicka raises.]
• [Look at the questions in the box on p.134 of the text.  Again, I won't be asking for your opinion, but I will be asking you to consider the argument between Kymlicka and Brian Barry.  While Kymlicka makes a case for the importance of culture and cultural security, Barry claims that multiculturalists "fetishize" culture, making it an all-purpose excuse and also trying to impose it on generations to come.  What are the arguments for each side?]

Here are some questions I'm considering re. Powers.

• Powers sees two traditions/perspectives coming into conflict in the United States.  What are these two perspectives?  How do they conflict?  (Powers mentions a number of dimensions;  you don't need to describe more than two.)  Name (or make up) a concrete case that illustrates how the two perspectives can come into conflict.