I.

POLITICAL SCIENCE - people are plural (Hannah Arendt)

➔ answers: what is reality?
approaches to what the political is:
1. arena approach – things happen in specific
areas; thus, things that occur outside these
areas are apolitical or private
➔ prioritizes freedom of
choice. there is no
coercion.
- resources are scarce
∴ power is exerted and identifies the winner; and
∴ politics begins in the fact of human plurality
// nuance: if politics is defined by process, it becomes
amorphous— which results in many interests such as
economics, psychology, etc. that pertain to gender,
race, etc. but because of this, what then is political
science? //

● art of government ONTOLOGICAL – what is reality? (our state of

- executive à bureaucracy being)
(lifeblood of government) ● foundationalism – there are foundations in the
- legislative world that are static; similar to natural sciences. ∴
- judiciary prediction can only happen because everything is
● public affairs empirical. (arena approach)
- the state
- territory
● anti-foundationalism – reality is what
- sovereignty subjects make of it. politics is negotiated.
- government (process)
- population

2. [politics of] process – does not occur all the

time and may be present in the context of
external political affairs; occurs only in the
case politics is exercised outside the public
or private (e.g. family or friends)
● compromise and consensus - there is always
a winner. however, consensus is difficult
because:
POLITICAL SCIENCE H
➔ answers: what to make of that reality
EPISTEMOLOGY – what can we know of our reality?
depending on your ontological position…
● foundationalist➝scientific➝theory (predicting to
explain)
 types of theories:
1. deductive ➝ rationalism
2. inductive ➝empiricism
- knowledge through senses
- always measurable
- method of behaviouralism
● anti-foundationalist ➝ hermeneutic
- finding meaning attached to
practices attached to that reality
e.g. the meaning of two people holding hands
is given by the actors
// two layers of interpretation is double
hermeneutic (as in, there is the interpretation of
the observer and the interpretation of the actor) //
II. META-THEORETICAL ISSUES
∴ the less falsifiable something is, the less scientific
it is (Karl Popper); “if theory is not best proven
through verification, then it is by falsification.”
METHODOLOGY – how can we make sense of our
reality? depending on your ontological position...
● foundationalist➝scientific➝quantitative
privileged
- however, quantitative can be based on
qualitative assessment so long as it
alludes to an objective truth / reality
● anti-foundationalist➝hermeneutic➝qualitative
- driven by language
// ∴ political science is scientific because it requires
essentially the same process of data-gathering. how we
get information in the social sciences is similar to how we
extract information in the natural sciences. there is the
need to observe phenomena, hypothesize or theorize,
and arrive at a conclusion or truth, therefore classifying it
as a field that requires human deduction.
take note that although an ontological position is
necessary in order for you to have an epistemological
position, this does not mean that one’s ontology is
determinant of one’s epistemology though it tends to. //
summary: the political in political science is defined by one’s
ontology (or reality). based on that, one decides what he knows
through epistemological means that classify his knowledge
based on its methodology.
● stability vs. change
● structure vs. agency ➝ reflexivity - we are not
just controlled by our structural
configurations; there is freedom to do/be
something else outside or even within one’s
structure (institutions vs. person)
● idealism vs. materialism
// dualism – ontological; only one can exist
duality – is not mutually exclusive //
POWER
“faces” of power
● Robert Dahl
- a can make b do something that b wouldn’t
otherwise do.
 - decision-making (powerful is he/she who
makes the decision)
∴ there is no power relation if you are not being coerced
● Bachrach & Baratz
- when someone sets a structure prior to the
discussion
- agenda-setting (there is a setting that is
unopposable)
● Steven Lukes
- power directly meddles with what you think
- preference-shaping (you believe that you like
what you are doing)
- your interest aren’t really your interests
because they were imposed
- hegemony (Antonio Gramsci)
➜material coercion
➔cultural consent (instead of
fighting the system, people obey it)
COMMONALITIES
(concerning power and power relations)
1. behavior
- there must be a form of behavioral
change
2. domination
- power therefore is a zero-sum game
(someone wins and someone loses)
- if you are a winner, you are free from
coercion
∴ the fundamental concept is INTEREST
Lord Acton: “power corrupts and power
corrupts completely”
3. simple a ➝ b dichotomy
- power of a is observed through
capacities (i.e. beauty, money)
∴ power is a possession
- wherein the main capacity is charisma;
- and capacities are furthered by social
position
CRITIQUE:
1. agents
- “how?” instead of being concerned with who;
- we should be concerned about apparatuses ➝ having an
apparatus means it is discipline-based (if it is
disciplined, it means one has regimen and
knowledge)
2. power can be enabling ∴ discipline enables productive
citizens (produces truths)
3. identity ➝ e.g. guidance counselors
III.THE MODERN (NATION) STATE
Held (1992/2003) said it is a nation if there is:
1. territoriality
2. control of the means of violence
3. impersonal structure of power
4. legitimacy
 - charisma // the state is also historical. it has a beginning
- traditional (Western-Euro formation -1648) and possibly an end //
- national-legal ● Capitalism
// Held’s definition reflects Max Weber’s: “corporate ➜ industrial revolution
groups that exercise compulsory jurisdiction that claims ➜ colonization
monopoly of a territory” // // capitalism cannot exist without the state (it is a
symbiotic relationship) //
STATE
∴ the more capable a state is in their means of violence, the better
the state is modern because of its evolvement they are at the EXTRACTION of taxes and military.
during the modern era. the relation of military expenditures to the economy is that a
> 1648 – treaty of Westphalia good military force is indicative of proper extraction of taxes,
meaning the economy is well-developed. also, having a
- states are independent of each other good military force entails safety for the people, allowing
- Westphalian system was anarchic them to function as productive individuals, boosting the
- realism: stares are supreme but insecure. all economy.
actions of the state can be deduced to the ∴ > war & militarism – citizens are accorded rights in return
need to maintain power. for service ➝ sovereignty
> capitalism – bio-power (the target is no longer subjects
● War and Militarism - efficient and effective and land, but the life of individuals)
extractive mechanisms:
SOVEREIGNTY + BIO-POWER = SURVEILLANCE
1. tax (there is no taxation without
representation) ∴ violence is the foundation of the state, but too much force (esp if it
2. people (conscription) is illegitimate) will make a state brittle. meaning, sovereignty is
➜ possible because of: always violent at first.

- citizenship
➝ rights (in exchange for certain services)
➝ duties (state safeguards your rights in
order for you to serve back)
- national identity (nacer; to be born)
➝ shaped by language
IV.DEMOCRACY
demos (people)
kratein (rule)
 ➝ rule of the people
// Modern political democracy is a system of
governance in which rulers are held accountable for
their actions in the public real by citizens intervening (a)
directly, through their own actions, or (b) indirectly,
through the competition and cooperation of their
elected representatives. //
- Magadia & Ramos; Schmitter & Karl
CONSTITUTION
- limits what a government can and can’t do
- safeguards
- what is radical is that rights are protected in
a constitutional way
- governments are sovereign but can’t go
against the constitution
- sovereignty relies on the people and is
constructed on the constitution
- opposition can win
this means political dynasties are bad
because they render elections not
competitive
- winners are allowed to rule
∴ consent of the people gives the
government power
● popular sovereignty – vox populei
● Hobbes: if you are better than the current
power holder, then you have every right to
overthrow
∴ it is only in democracy where COOPERATION and
COMPETITION are necessary and invited
a democracy is only a democracy if it is
competitive, but all forms of competition
will mean nothing without cooperation

ELECTIONS
- winner of plurality vote will be challenged to
win legitimacy of people
- plurality – highest votes
- parliamentary system:
party that decides who gets seats but now
the electorate knows who will be the takers
of the seats and it shouldn’t be like that
because of personality politics
∴ elections should be competitive
- incumbents can lose