Contemporary political discourse very frequently makes use of such terms as Conservatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Republicanism, Federalism, and Postmodernism, among several others. Yet, as one attends to the manner in which these –isms are employed both in spoken and written language, one is left with the impression that they do not connote the same thing to different authors and speakers, not to mention the audience to whom these terms are addressed. Not only does there appear to be a disjunction between usage and meaning, but also, and perhaps more significantly, it seems to be the case that contemporary understanding of these terms may not accurately reflect the ideas of those who initially developed the underlying concepts and positions which are represented by these –isms. In other words, when we make use of a term such as Socialism, are we using it in a manner which is in accord with what Socialism was understood to mean when it was established by Karl Marx in the 19th century?

To answer this question, and to arrive at an understanding of the differences and similarities in contemporary usage, this course will examine a selection of the texts that form the basis of six perspectives through which the modern world and contemporary politics is viewed: Liberalism, Conservatism, Socialism, Republicanism, Federalism, and Postmodernism. The class will study the works of Burke (Conservatism), Kant, Locke and Mill (Liberalism), Marx (Socialism), the authors of the Federalist Papers, Hamilton, Madison, and Jay (Republicanism and Federalism), and Nietzsche (Postmodernism).

The fundamental theme running throughout the course, as well as the course structure itself, will address the issue of whether or not the ideas set down by the seminal authors of Conservatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Republicanism, Federalism, and Postmodernism are understood today in the same manner as was originally intended. Through the reading, reflection, and discussion of the texts selected for the course, the student should reach an understanding of these writings in order to be able to determine the extent to which current expressions of these six perspectives conform to or deviate from what their authors initially conceived.