Okay, so maybe 49 minutes is not quite a lecturelet. But it’s shorter than the previous few so-called lecturelets, so that has to count for something. Liberalism is our topic this week: both IR liberalism and the broader liberal tradition from which it (sometimes implicitly) derives.
Someone commented that these were less lecturelets and mroe lectures; I am not sure how much longer they will continue to run to this size, but these past couple of weeks there seems to have been a lot to say. Maybe this is a temporary bulge; we’ll see.
In any event: here’s lecture(let) 8, on IR realism.
Here’s the seventh installment in the ongoing, thrilling series “Some Short Lecturelets On International Relations Theory,” or something like that. Anyway, here’s the latest set of slides and my commentary for SIS-301; this time the topic is Hegel, and the rationality of History.
Yes, I know it’s almost an hour long. Enlightenment philosophy is complicated stuff.
Here’s a little supplemental lecturelet I whipped up for SIS-301. This is based on some diagrams I sketched on the board one day after class; not everyone could stay for that, and some people found them helpful, so I’m making them publicly available in this form. What I’ve done here is to briefly sketch the ruler/ruled relationship according to Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Kant, as I see it. Enjoy!
Here’s the sixth lecturelet for SIS-301 — this one’s on Kant. I also took the opportunity to talk a bit about “the international” and the connection between politcal theory and international relations, so this one is a bit longer than usual.
Here’s the fifth lecturelet for SIS-301, Spring 2009; this one’s on Rousseau. Yes, Rousseau: not often thought of as an IR theorist, but I think he opens up interesting vistas.
The fourth in the ongoing series for Theories of International Relations. This one’s on Locke.
The third lecturelet from SIS-301, Spring 2009. This one’s on Hobbes, and seeks to locate him within the broader Enlightenment project.
Here’s the second lecturelet for SIS-301, Spring 2009. This one provides context for our discussion of Machiavelli.