Department of Government
The Government Department will be hosting a GRADUATE STUDENT CONFERENCE to show case the best student papers from DC-area universities on Monday, May 14th, 2007 from 1:45pm to 5:00pm.
Join us for discussion, fellowship, and intellectual stimulation! Panel presentations will take place in Healy 104 and 105 with presenters from GU, Maryland, SAIS, and GWU from all four sub-fields. Please find the Panel Schedule and Abstracts of Papers to be Presented below.
Please contact Julia Lau for more information.
PANEL 1: COMPARATIVE POLITICS / GOVERNMENT (1:45-3:15 P.M.) Healy Hall
Room 104
Chair: Hamutal Bernstein, Georgetown University
Discussant: Ariel Ira Ahram, Georgetown University
1. Jocelyn Weiner, Georgetown University
“The Israeli High Court of Justice: A Study of a Domestic Court in a
Time of Conflict”
2. Ajay Verghese, George Washington University
“The Role of Class Politics in India: Why West Bengal and Kerala?”
3. Sara Konoe, Johns Hopkins, SAIS
“Financial Crises and the Politics of Financial Governance Reforms: Japan and the U.S.A. in Comparison”
4. Gustavo Flores-Macias, Georgetown University
“Challenging the Notion of a Leftist Turn in Latin America”
PANEL 2: AMERICAN POLITICS (1:45-3:15 P.M.) Healy Hall Room 105
Chair/Discussant: Dr. Jonathan M. Ladd, Georgetown University
Second Discussant: Micah Jensen, Georgetown University
1. Linda Merola, Georgetown University
“A Culture of Crisis: Information and the Scope of American Civil Liberties in an Era of Terrorist Threat”
2. Aaron Dusso and Ryan Schoen, George Washington University
“Uncovering the Hidden Effects of Issues”
3. John McTague, University of Maryland, College Park
“Partisan Mountains and Molehills: The Geography of Intraparty
Factionalism” (Co-authored with UMD graduate student, Shanna Pearson-Merkowitz)
4. Sarah Kreps, Georgetown University
“When Does the Mission Determine the Coalition? The Logic of Multilateral Intervention and the Case of Afghanistan”
5. David Madland, Georgetown University
“Case Studies of Retirement Benefit Protest” (A Chapter from: “A Wink and a Handshake: Why the Collapse of the U.S. Pension System has Provoked Little Protest”)
PANEL 3: INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (3:30-5:00 P.M.) Healy Hall Room 104
Chair: Elizabeth Grimm, Georgetown University
Discussants: Dr. Marc Busch and William Schlickenmaier, Georgetown University
1. Mick Gleason, George Washington University
“Pride, Identity and Space”
2. Pelin Eralp, University of Maryland, College Park
“Military Interventions in Civil Wars: Why do Foreign Powers Intervene
in Civil Wars?”
3.Ryan Crow, Johns Hopkins, SAIS
“Critical Intervals, Misperception, and Conflict: Power Cycle Theory and
the Pacific War”
4. Sarah Cleeland Knight, Georgetown University
“Divested Interests: Globalization and the Changing Landscape of
Exchange Rate Politics”
5. Andrea Bertone, University of Maryland, College Park
“The Politics of Combating Human Trafficking”
PANEL 4: POLITICAL THEORY (3:30-5:00 P.M.) Healy Hall Room 105
Co-Chairs and Discussants: Emily Hoechst and Paula Olearnik, Georgetown University
1. Greg Weiner, Georgetown University
“To Try Experiments Merely Upon Philosophy - Montesquieu, Hume and the Tenth Federalist”
2. Brian Karlsson, George Washington University
“The Philosopher and Political Action in Kant’s Perpetual Peace”
3. Sung Moon Kim, University of Maryland, College Park
“The Origin of Political Liberty in Confucianism: A Nietzschean
Interpretation”
4. Tom Kerch, Georgetown University
“Plato’s Concept of Due Measure”
ABSTRACTS OF PAPERS TO BE PRESENTED
PANEL 1: COMPARATIVE POLITICS / GOVERNMENT
1:45-3:15 P.M. Healy Hall Room 104
Chair: Hamutal Bernstein, Georgetown University
Discussant: Ariel Ira Ahram, Georgetown University
1. Jocelyn Weiner, Georgetown University
“The Israeli High Court of Justice: A Study of a Domestic Court in a Time of Conflict”
In this paper, I am interested in exploring the relationship between an occupying power’s judicial system and the occupied people, through a case study of the decisions of the Israeli High Court of Justice in the Palestinian territories, from 1967-1993. This paper explores the reasons behind the judicial review of the military government, asking whether humanitarian or political concerns played a larger role. The puzzle: How can we explain the change from a largely liberal, activist Court within the boundaries of the State of Israel to the conservative, government-minded Court overseeing the Palestinian territories? What justifications have the justices themselves relied upon while making these decisions? I will end my paper with some concluding thoughts on the theoretical, empirical, and normative consequences—intended and unintended—of judicial review over non-citizens in occupied territory and of the Israeli-Palestinian situation in particular.
2. Ajay Verghese, George Washington University
“The Role of Class Politics in India: Why West Bengal and Kerala?”
Much of the literature on India has historically eschewed the analysis of class politics, instead focusing on the country’s ethnic dimensions. Recently, however, social scientists have begun to reassess the importance of class politics in India, and my paper builds on this trend to analyze an as-yet overlooked puzzle: why has class politics, as characterized by communist party victories, only historically been a dominant force in two Indian states: West Bengal and Kerala? This fact is increasingly interesting considering recent developments in India which have seen the rise of ethnic parties in many other states. Though a wide range of authors have studied either West Bengal or Kerala independently, there have been very few studies that bundle both cases together – despite their overarching similarity of continued communist party success. Moreover, most existent explanations rarely try to explain the absence of this success in other Indian states. Though my research is still in its preliminary stages, I have a two-part explanation for the rise of communism and class-based mobilization in West Bengal and Kerala.
First, I argue that the key variable that explains the variation in communist party successes in India is the level of caste-stratification. Communist parties typically succeed in instances of either high caste-stratification (Kerala) or low caste-stratification (West Bengal). In the former instance, communist parties succeed because of their push for social justice; in the latter instance, they succeed because of their egalitarian agenda. In instances of moderate caste-stratification, I contend that the INC – the Indian National Congress, which presented itself as the party of all economic classes – was able to effectively mute class antagonisms and win state elections.
Second, I argue that these communist parties have remained successful over time – despite the rise of ethnic parties in India over the last several decades – because voters have come to identify themselves in class terms. This has implications for constructivist perceptions of identity, which typically do not focus on class. Yet, the cases of West Bengal and Kerala suggest that class is an important component of voters’ identities in these two states. The variance of communist party successes in India has been an overlooked puzzle in the literature, and my work offers some insights that might explain both the variation itself, and – more importantly – why class politics does still matter to the subcontinent, and to perceptions of Indian identity.
3. Sara Konoe, Johns Hopkins, SAIS
“Financial Crises and the Politics of Financial Governance Reforms: Japan and the U.S.A. in Comparison”
This paper examines the politics of dealing with financial crises and financial governance reform from a comparative perspective. It will examine the bursting of the financial bubble in the 1990s in Japan and the S&L crisis in the 1980s in the U.S. so as to provide prominent examples of how politics affects the paths and outcomes of financial market restructuring and financial governance reform. Financial market restructuring and financial governance reform need to be combined, since, without financial governance reform in the deposit insurance system and supervisory structure, financial market restructuring with the injection of public funds could remove monitoring incentives from depositors and financial institutions. Lack of monitoring mechanisms could worsen bad loans problems. Both reforms had been postponed for a long time. The initial pledge of fiscal restructuring in the Hashimoto Administration and in the Reagan Administration delayed the timing of undertaking of financial market restructuring and financial governance reform. Even more, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) in Japan and S&L industry-linked politicians in the United States, both Republicans and Democrats, frustrated reforms by the use of forbearance policies, in order to avoid process of accusation. The questions are: 1) What factors can explain the timing in terms of when reforms were initiated? 2) What factors can explain the speed and size of the reforms? (…)
4. Gustavo Flores-Macias, Georgetown University
“Challenging the Notion of a Leftist Turn in Latin America"”
In contrast with the leftist tsunami that some analyst predicted for Latin America, most of the leftist candidates that campaigned on an anti-neoliberal ticket have demonstrated a high degree of continuity with the economic policies of their much-criticized predecessors. In this article I assess whether leftist governments in the region have conducted economic policies consistent with the economic project that they promised to implement during the campaign. I first present an overview of the degree of antineoliberalism articulated by leftist candidates during the campaigns and compare it with the extent to which orthodox economic policy has been conducted once the left reached power. Next, I analyze in detail the three leftist governments that have completed a full term in office—Brazil, Chile, and Venezuela. I look into the coincidences and discrepancies between their party manifestos and government programs on the one hand, and their economic policies on the other. I find variation regarding how closely their economic policies follow their campaign manifestos, and argue that, by and large, the left has maintained high continuity with the neoliberal economic policies of their non-leftist predecessors.
PANEL 2: AMERICAN POLITICS
1:45-3:15 P.M. Healy Hall Room 105
Chair and Discussant: Dr. Jonathan M. Ladd, Georgetown University
Co-Discussant: Micah Jensen, Georgetown University
1. Linda Merola, Georgetown University
“A Culture of Crisis: Information and the Scope of American Civil Liberties in an Era of Terrorist Threat”
Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, a significant portion of the public debate in the United States has focused upon the threat of terrorism. Yet, previous scholarship has concluded that exposure to threatening information may result in significant alterations to individual decision making and, ultimately, in the adoption of new broad-based commitments. Though Americans are socialized to support equal extensions of rights to members of unpopular groups, many have questioned whether the current terrorist crisis has resulted in the erosion of our societal commitment to expansive guarantees of civil liberties. Indeed, research conducted prior to 9/11 suggests that, when individuals feel threatened, they are more likely to depart from their socialization to be tolerant, weighing the content of incoming information more heavily. Through an inter-disciplinary, multi-method approach, this project explores alterations in the content of information contained in our public discourse related to civil liberties in the post-9/11 period. To accomplish this, the research utilizes both traditional and computerized linguistic content analyses to examine the discourse related to civil liberties that has been conducted in the media, in law review articles and in judicial opinions. Through the analysis of survey-experimental data, the project then attempts to gauge the impact of changes in the information environment through an investigation of the interaction of various salient forms of information with the willingness of citizens to allow members of unpopular groups to exercise rights.
2. Aaron Dusso and Ryan Schoen, George Washington University
“Uncovering the Hidden Effects of Issues”
What role do issues play in the minds of citizens? Despite the existence of a large number of works focused on specific issues during specific elections, there is a surprising lack of consensus regarding their broader importance during elections in general. Drawing upon three distinct literatures focused on (1) the concept of priming, (2) negative advertising, and (3) electoral issues, we build a general theory of issues as motivators of electoral participation. We hypothesize that individuals who have issue concerns are more likely to vote than those who do not. In order to test our hypothesis, we estimate logit models predicting turnout in all presidential and House elections between 1978 and 2000. Through this analysis, we find strong support for our hypothesis across all of these elections.
3. John McTague, University of Maryland
“Partisan Mountains and Molehills: The Geography of Intraparty Factionalism”
(Co- authored with UMD graduate student, Shanna Pearson-Merkowitz)
We examine whether the geographic distribution of a party’s electoral support affects the divisiveness of statewide primaries. In spite of V.O. Key’s original insight that geography may be a relevant predictor of contested statewide primaries, this hypothesis has received little attention from political scientists. We test Key’s hypothesis using data on gubernatorial and U.S. Senate elections to identify the effects of electoral geography on the structure of competition in primary elections. We contend that dispersed bases of electoral support greatly increase the costs associated with maintaining party cohesion. Our findings support the theory that a geographically dispersed electorate accentuates the potential for intraparty factionalism. These results are robust across several measures of the dependent variable.
4. Sarah Kreps, Georgetown University
“When Does the Mission Determine the Coalition? The Logic of Multilateral Intervention and the Case of Afghanistan”
Using the debate between the logic of appropriateness and consequences as a theoretical backdrop, I argue that neither is able to explain United States’ choices between unilateralism and multilateralism in post-Cold War military interventions. The logic of appropriateness is theoretically flawed because states are ultimately unwilling to compromise operational effectiveness on behalf of “oughtness”, and the logic of consequences has until now been improperly specified for the purposes of explaining military cooperation behavior. In this article, I suggest that “consequences” are best specified as a function of threat imminence (time horizon), which creates intertemporal tradeoffs between the long-term benefits of multilateralism and immediate payoffs of unilateralism, and the nature of the intervention, which affects the payoffs of multilateralism. I illustrate the argument with a case study of the US intervention in Afghanistan, a largely unilateral intervention despite being a “least likely” case for unilateralism according to the analytical predictions of existing theoretical approaches.
5. David Lawrence Madland, Georgetown University
“Case Studies of Retirement Benefit Protest” (A Chapter from: “A Wink and a Handshake: Why the Collapse of the U.S. Pension System has Provoked Little Protest”)
Over the past five years, more than ten million workers and retirees have had their company pension or retiree health benefits cut, and millions more could lose them in the future. In fact, while workers typically lose tens of thousands of dollars, many lose much, much more. In general, as companies have shed their legacy costs, workers and retirees have not taken political action. Only in certain cases have these monetary losses and broken promises provoked significant protests. And perhaps more puzzling, even at companies such as Verizon and IBM, where workers have had significant success protesting certain kinds of pension changes, these same workers have done little to protest subsequent retirement cuts.
Through case study analysis, this paper tests the theory that the limited role of organizations and people's ideological opposition to government regulations largely explains the low levels of protest. The paper briefly analyzes dozens of cases of retirement benefit cuts, demonstrating how organizational efforts and ideological concerns explain the pattern of protest. The chapter then closely examines four specific cases of retirement benefit cuts to help clarify the ways that organizations and American's self-reliant ideology shape protest.
PANEL 3: INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (3:30-5:00 P.M.) Healy Hall Room 104
Chair: Elizabeth Grimm, Georgetown University
Discussants: Dr. Marc Busch, Georgetown University & William Schlickenmaier, Georgetown University
1. Mick Gleason, George Washington University
“Pride, Identity and Space”
Among many other things, the European Union (EU) and China have these two things in common; they both have diverse ethnic populations with corresponding difficulties in constructing a unified identity; and they both have ambitious space programs calculated to bring material benefits, pride, and internal cohesion to their citizens. What exactly is the relationship between space programs, pride, and group identity? Space programs are commonly characterized as providing pride to the communities to which they belong. But how is this pride created? Is it sustainable? Does it contribute significantly to strengthening group identity? This paper uses a rationalist approach to explore these questions and argues that t he most important catalyst for establishing an individual's pride in a group is the material benefit the group provides, as well as the benefit's perceptibility, and its duration. T he investigation assesses whether it is reasonable to assert that space programs meet these criteria. These insights then shed light on the legitimacy of claims that the EU and Chinese space programs buttress their identities and internal cohesion.
2. Pelin Eralp, University of Maryland
“Military Interventions in Civil Wars: Why do Foreign Powers Intervene in Civil Wars?”
Many civil wars in the 20th century have prompted diplomatic, economic and military interventions by foreign powers. Among different types of unilateral interventions in civil wars, military interventions are of particular concern because they can prolong and internationalize civil wars. Military interventions are also costly and risky for external powers. However, empirical studies suggest that military interventions are quite common and that minor powers resort to unilateral military interventions as frequently as major powers. The purpose of this study is to understand why external powers intervene militarily in civil wars on behalf of the government or the opposition in the target country. By analyzing why foreign powers resort to unilateral military interventions
in civil wars and how they choose sides, this dissertation aims to make theoretical and methodological contributions to the civil war and foreign policy decision-making literature.
The hypotheses in this study will be tested against a large data set which includes all unilateral interventions as well as cases of non-intervention in civil wars between 1946 and 2005. The existing studies in the literature present incomplete and methodologically biased results by testing hypotheses against cases of interventions. This project aims to avoid selection bias by including in the data set potential interveners who did not intervene in civil wars. The data set constructed for this study is also an important contribution to the civil war literature. A two-stage Heckman model will be used to test the hypotheses. The first stage of the analysis will test the hypotheses on why foreign powers intervene militarily in civil wars. The second stage will test the hypotheses on how third parties choose sides. The empirical findings on why states decide to pursue unilateral military interventions will improve our understanding of this foreign policy behavior which is critical for international peace.
3. Ryan Crow, Johns Hopkins, SAIS
“Critical Intervals, Misperception, and Conflict: Power Cycle Theory and the Pacific War”
Purely structural models of international behavior have a difficult time accounting for seemingly irrational decisions for war. Purely state and individual-level explanations are equally unsatisfying insofar as they often lack generalizability or fail to take the constraints and pressures of the international environment into account. Herein, I offer a two-part systemic and psychological model of the outbreak of war that is neither limited to a specific region nor limited to the conditions of particular era. Relying on Doran’s power cycle theory, I demonstrate that the prospect of rapid changes in the sign (positive to negative for example) or rate of relative power growth traumatize national leaders, thereby creating the psychological conditions that lead to sub-rational decision-making and war. Psychological theories of decision-making are then incorporated to show how the particular mental biases generated by passage through such critical points on a state’s cycle of relative power are both different and more dangerous than biases that influence the decision-making of other leaders in the system at such times. During critical intervals, both cognitive and motivated biases ensure that most actors will probably fail to understand their rivals’ underlying perceptions about the state of the system and their place in it. As a result, standard bargaining or coercive processes cannot be relied upon to alter behavior in a predictable fashion as the adversary is likely to ignore or misperceive the intended message of subtle signaling tactics. Alternative policies may need to be devised to work around or guard against the failure of these damaged standard means of communication. This model is superior to other explanations for the outbreak of war because it links structural pressures to shifts in individual decision-making behavior in a way that a model utilizing a single level of analysis cannot, and because it offers a systematic explanation for the occasional failure of diplomatic tactics that usually produce results. The outbreak of the Pacific War between Japan and the United States is used to illustrate, rather than formally test the model in action.
4. Sarah Cleeland Knight, Georgetown University
“Divested Interests: Globalization and the Changing Landscape of Exchange Rate Politics”
A strong dollar inspired widespread political mobilization among disadvantaged labor and industry groups in the mid-1980s, but these same groups remained relatively silent when the dollar appreciated sharply again in the late 1990s. The extant literature is ill-equipped to explain this variation in political activity, as it tends to portray economic actors as either keenly aware and active, or wholly uniformed and ambivalent. The conditions that inspire political mobilization are varied, but the factor that has the most traction in explaining this puzzle is the recent proliferation of operational and financial hedging strategies by which firms can offset their exchange rate risk. Hedging dampens the distributional impact of exchange rates, which explains why
many firms did not invest the resources necessary to mobilize against the strong dollar in the 1990s as they did in the 1980s. Nonetheless, while hedging has diminished the overall levels of political activity on exchange rates, certain groups (import-competitive firms, small firms, and employees of firms with mobile capital) remain vulnerable to the losses associated with exchange rates, and these
groups are expected to continue to seek to modify policy according to their preferences. In this way, the internationalization of production and finance has reshaped the landscape of exchange rate politics. This argument is tested empirically with statistical analysis of an original, large-N survey of US firms, labor unions, and trade associations on their preferences and political activity on exchange rates. The analysis generally supports the hypotheses, although there is further work to be
done.
5. Andrea Bertone, University of Maryland
“The Politics of Combating Human Trafficking”
Human trafficking is a gravely serious human rights violation. Virtually every country is affected in some way by human trafficking, either as a destination, transit, or sending country, or some combination of the three. Recently, the international community, with some countries and organizations assuming a more proactive role than others, has placed this issue high on its political agenda, engendering a great deal of interest by organizations, governments, citizens, and media. However, human trafficking is not a new phenomenon. In fact, sexual and labor exploitation in its many forms has always been a part of the human condition. However, political leaders, activists, advocates, academics and others have taken an increased interest in trafficking due in part to the greater global awareness of human rights issues in general.
This paper provides a brief overview of some of the key political issues involved in the effort to combat global human trafficking. The political debate among the different ideological camps affects both positively and negatively the progress to combat trafficking. Many of the points and arguments presented here are openly contested in the ongoing debates about what constitutes “best practices” regarding prevention of trafficking, protection of trafficked persons, and prosecution of traffickers. My interests lie in these political debates and the actors involved. First, I will outline briefly the global movement to combat human trafficking. This movement has benefited greatly from its precursor movements against human rights violations in general, and violence against women in particular. Second, I will discuss some of the political challenges of addressing this global issue. The level of politicization has increased given the dynamics of the political agendas. Finally, I will make several recommendations for how I believe we should continue to make progress in our efforts to combat this very complex social, political, and economic problem.
PANEL 4: POLITICAL THEORY (3:30-5:00 P.M.) Healy Hall Room 105
Co-Chairs and Discussants: Emily Hoechst and Paula Olearnik
1. Greg Weiner, Georgetown University
“To Try Experiments Merely Upon Philosophy - Montesquieu, Hume and the Tenth Federalist”
Douglass Adair’s landmark 1957 essay identifying David Hume as the theoretical inspiration for James Madison’s Tenth Federalist has shaped a half-century of scholarship on one of the most heralded works of American political theory. The resulting rehabilitation of the father of the Constitution as a serious political theorist is gratifying, but Adair may achieve it at the expense of confounding Madison’s ideas while overlooking his innovative contributions to republican thought. Adair’s analysis rests on three highly questionable premises: that the Founders harbored serious doubts about the practicability of popular government in an extended republic, that Madison intended to reply to Montesquieu’s warnings on the subject, and that he did so by adapting the ideas of Hume. This paper endeavors to challenge each of these premises in turn and thereby show that the Tenth Federalist can be accurately described as neither a reply to Montesquieu nor an extension of Hume.
2. Brian Karlsson, George Washington University
“The Philosopher and Political Action in Kant’s Perpetual Peace”
In a brief supplement in Perpetual Peace, Kant writes, “The maxims of the philosophers on the conditions under which public peace is possible shall be consulted by states which are armed for war.” In order to secure true peace in his sense of the term (i.e., a universal, lasting international peace and not merely a temporary cessation of hostilities), the state should look to philosophers for advice, because it is only through the counsel of philosophers that the state can eventually overcome the interests and perspectives that prevent true peace from being achieved. But why and how is this so? Kant’s argument for the importance of the philosopher rests on three major components: his distinction between the roles and duties of the philosopher and jurist; his claim that philosophers are incapable of factionalism and revolution; and finally, his emphasis on the role of publicity, or the public sphere. This paper will trace these components and connect them to other important texts in order to develop a fuller picture of how Kant views the intellectual’s proper political role. What emerges is an ideal picture of the philosopher, one that is not surprising to those familiar with Kant’s philosophy.
3. Sung Moon Kim, University of Maryland
“The Origin of Political Liberty in Confucianism: A Nietzschean Interpretation”
Confucianism, traditionally affiliated with authoritarianism, is now credited with a strong allegiance to liberal values. But by centering on moral freedom, the liberal reinterpretation of Confucianism has paid less attention to the value of political liberty in it. If anything, it tends to treat political liberty merely as derivative of moral freedom. Notwithstanding a dialectical relation between moral freedom and political liberty in Confucianism, however, Confucian political liberty cannot be properly understood without considering kingship as the political backdrop. This essay argues that in the Confucian tradition, Mencius first theorized political liberty while wrestling with the problem of realpolitik of his time. In order to make Mencius’ claim more intelligible, it first examines the psychological origin and the essential characteristics of realpolitik by analyzing Nietzsche’s concept of “the higher man” and shows how Mencius judiciously transvaluated realpolitik in terms of tyranny and justified political liberty as a moral weapon against it.
4. Tom Kerch, Georgetown University
“Plato’s Concept of Due Measure”
It is commonly recognized that certain Platonic dialogues exhibit complementary, or different, evaluations of the same, or similar, topics. This paper will address three of Plato’s works that deal with political and moral thought. A reading of his works suggests that Plato presents us with different arguments in regard to the manner in which human beings ought to live as individuals and as members of a political community. I argue that there is a shift in Plato’s thought from an emphasis on the need for a well-harmonized soul, as encountered in dialogues such as the Republic, to a more practicable claim that a life lived in accordance with the concept due measure is perhaps the best that can be attained. In these latter works Plato turns from a political and moral philosophy grounded in the intellection of the Forms as the means by which the soul is kept in harmony to a practical philosophy rooted in the notions of due measure and moderation.
This alternate perspective is first signaled in a passage in the Statesman. Rather than apprehending the Good, the notion of what is in due measure appears to be the ground out of which springs both Plato’s philosophical methodology, as well as the dialogue’s philosophical arguments and the consequences which they entail. It is the task of the statesman to find the middle between extreme states and to assist individuals to live in accordance with what is in due measure. Turning to the Philebus, we find that the concept of due measure is critical for Plato’s argument. After arguing that pleasure by itself is not the good, Socrates proclaims: “pleasure is not the first of possessions, nor again the second, but the first … somehow concerns measure, what is in due measure, and the opportune …” These notions are precisely those employed in the Statesman.
Finally, the political, legislative, and educative programs articulated in the Laws are grounded in the concept of due measure. Passages in the work that indicate that Plato conceived the project of the Laws in terms of due measure and moderation. These concepts are central to what constitutes the best type of regime, the manner in which a law-giver legislates, and the education which the citizens receive in respect to the political community; due measure is essential to ensure the proper establishment of a polis, its continued existence, the laws by which it is governed, and the way in which the citizens live as politically and morally responsible agents. Without a grounding in due measure the polis risks destruction.
To sum up: in a particular group of works Plato’s philosophy underwent a change in emphasis. Although Plato never disregards, or rejects, the fundamental notion that in order to live politically and morally responsible lives we must always attend to the condition of our souls, the manner by which we can accomplish this task is argued in a different manner in the works I am considering. The means for effecting this task is no longer the apprehension of the Forms, rather, it is to be educated in and to live in accordance with the concept of due measure.