EMPIRICAL THEORIES OF POLITICS
Professor Lawrence C. Dodd
University of Florida
Spring, 2001
Preliminary Overview
Part One: Introduction
BREAK (No Class-October 23rd): Prepare Theory Paper I
Seminar Objectives
The purpose of this course is to introduce students to the relevance and role of empirical theory in political analysis. It seeks to do so in four ways. First, it provides an overview of some basic attributes that characterize ‘good empirical theory’ and presents several contrasting theoretical traditions in political analysis. Second, it engages students in learning to think and argue in a manner that is both theoretical -- that is, abstract, systematic and reasoned in nature – and empirical – that is, subject to probing, investigation and testing by empirical observation. Third, it guides students towards the construction of an empirical theory that will be useful in addressing a puzzle of immediate interest to them; in particular, it seeks to help students develop theoretical ideas and arguments relevant to their doctoral dissertations. Fourth, it seeks to alert students to the problems and pitfalls of various forms of theoretical thinking and to encourage them to think about the broader paradigmatic and philosophical implications of empirical theories.
The basic assumption of the course is that as we employ empirical theory in political inquiry, we increase our capacity to clarify, understand, explain, discuss intelligently and perhaps foresee the nature of political reality. Empirical theory is, then, first and foremost a way of thinking about the world that allows us to comprehend the world more fully and foresightfully than we would otherwise. Along the way, empirical theory provides, secondarily, a variety of perspectives, hypotheses and possibilities that we can test both through empirical research and through observation of predicted outcomes in the real world.. The purpose of empirical theory, however, is not to provide fodder for our razzle-dazzle statistical techniques, justifications for exotic field trips or rationales for required research projects, but to provide ways of thinking about the world that allow us to see it and reason about it more self-consciously, completely, foresightfully and deeply than we would otherwise.
Much of the ‘test’ of empirical theory, thus, comes not in its utility in ‘research’ but in its sustained relevance to the real world as evidenced in a theory’s long term capacity to help society at-large discuss, make sense out of, address and foresee political phenomena. As scholars we seek to contribute plausible empirical theories to societal dialogue while probing and testing elements of our theories that are potentially susceptible to immediate disconfirmation; along the way, however, we realize that the most inventive and far-reaching theories (as with Darwin’s theory of evolution in biology) may involve some major empirical arguments and assumptions not susceptible to test through currently available data and methods. Our obligation, as empirical theorists, is thus three-fold: (1) to state our theories in ways that are subject, in principle, to eventual testing and disconfirmation through potential empirical observation (2) to pursue immediate test of those elements of our theories that are currently amenable to empirical observations, being as rigorous, resourceful and disciplined as we can be in this endeavor; and (3) also to engage in the broader theoretical dialogues of our discipline and society in a conscientious and constructive manner that seeks to clarify the applicability of our theories to broad puzzles while also evidencing a significant element of humility that reflects the limits of our capacity to ‘prove’ our theories.
Given this general understanding of the nature and role of empirical theory, in this course we attempt to understand how scholars generate empirical theories that address intriguing political puzzles, how they test and apply elements of their theories through empirical observation, and how they can best utilize empirical theories in broad conversations about politics. We will do so by examining four theoretical traditions:
(1) social choice theories: arguments that emphasize the rational goal-oriented calculus of individuals in politics, as qualified and informed by genetic and neuro-biological studies;
(2) social structure theories: arguments that emphasize the role of social, institutional and economic conditions and processes in shaping the context and outcome of political action;
(3) social learning and political psychological theories: arguments that center on the role that perceptions, attitudes, beliefs and ideas play in shaping individual and group capacities to make choices in specific contexts; and
(4) socio-cultural evolution theories: arguments that highlight the collective processes by which goals, structures and beliefs are reshaped and transformed into new patterns across time.
Each of these four theoretical traditions covers an immense literature that scholars could spend a lifetime studying. The intent in examining these four traditions is not to engage students in a comprehensive effort to master each literature, but (1) to introduce them to some foundation concepts and arguments that illustrate the four distinct ways of theorizing about empirical political reality, and to consider how social scientists have built on such concepts and arguments in their research and theorizing; (2) to provide some overview bibliography and discussions that will help students critically assess each theoretical tradition and engage in the study of the individual theoretical traditions on their own; (3) to help students grasp the ‘logic’ of theorizing in the four different ways, so that students can engage in some initial efforts at theory-building and empirical research from each perspective; and (4) to help students combine the different forms of theorizing into broader empirical interpretations and learn from the interplay of the different traditions.
The overarching logic of the course, in other words, is to engage the student in ‘doing empirical theory’ through the use and combination of four different ways of conceptualizing and analyzing political reality. Two explicit assumptions throughout the course are that one can learn to ‘do empirical theory’ by studying and critiquing foundations works and exemplars in the major traditions of empirical theory and that one can learn to appreciate and critically assess different theoretical traditions by explicitly comparing them to one another. ‘Doing theory’ involves seeking to make one’s assumptions about the world (or analytic vision) explicit, to clearly identify key causal principles that operate in one’s assumed world, to develop a core thesis from one’s assumptions and causal principles that is reasoned and logical, and to pursue the argument in a systematic manner that addresses a specific puzzle in an intellectually compelling and empirical plausible manner. As we read different empirical theories, and examine critiques and discussions of theory, and as we try our hand at building on or emulating such theoretical efforts, we ourselves can ‘become theorists.’
An underlying assumption of the course is that the four different ways of analyzing politics examined in this course actually capture four different dimensions of politics: the foreground of political calculation and instrumental action; the background which structures the social pursuit of goals; the connective pattern of meaning (that is, the shared beliefs and collective ideas about politics and society) that permeate both the foreground and background so that political actors in the foreground can calculate and act in ways that relate to the background context; and the dynamic processes which influence the interaction of foreground, background and connective patterning in ways that systematically reshape reality across time.
A recurring theme of the course will be that the egregious misunderstandings and mispredictions of politics generally come in two ways. First, scholars may fail to be explicit and careful in their assumptions, causal arguments, logic, empirical referents, and so forth, and thus engage in self-deceptive and faulty reasoning about the world. Thus much attention must be given to critical assessment of a theory as a reasoned body of empirical argument. However, it is critical that scholars not become so immersed in and entranced by the logic and empirical applicability of one tradition that they overlook the second major problem that can undermine political inquiry: the tendency towards theoretical myopia or intellectual narrowness. In other words, as scholars focus intensely on one dimension of politics, and one theoretical tradition, they may overlook interactive processes and conditions that occur across the dimensions of political life, and that require attentiveness to several theoretical traditions.
Breakthroughs in addressing particular puzzles about politics thus often come, it will be argued, as two or more theoretical perspectives are combined in ways that allow scholars to address a puzzle in a broad, comprehensive, interactive and reasoned manner. Throughout the course, therefore, we will not only look at works that illustrate particular perspectives but also will look at works that combine perspectives. An additional theme will be that a truly comprehensive understanding of politics requires that we see how foreground, background, patterned meaning and transformative processes are connected and interact in ways that change all three and their patterned connections. In consideration of this possibility, the course also will consider whether an evolutionary perspective on politics might provide a way of connecting these four dimensions, generating a more comprehensive understanding, and facilitating broader perspectives on politics that lead to intellectual breakthroughs in our empirical analyses.
The organization of the course is as follows. Part One will focus briefly on the
nature, role and range of empirical theory in political inquiry and
engage in
an overview discussion of several illustrative works that attend to
multiple
theoretical perspectives on politics, across foreground, background and
connective patterns. Part Two will
attempt to give students a reasonable ‘feel’ for each form of
theorizing, and a
sense of how they – separately and in combination – relate to empirical
inquiry
in students’ primary areas of scholarly interest. It will thus carry
students
across literature on foreground or social choice, background or social
structure, connective patterns or social learning, and connective
interaction
or evolutionary theory. Part Three
will then focus on Advanced Topics in Empirical Theory, with students
examining
more highly developed and challenging concepts, literature and
arguments across
the four dimensions and theoretical traditions. Part Three thus will
extend the
students’ repertoire of concepts and arguments from the different
traditions.
It will also raise the possibility that, as we move across these four
traditions, and particularly as we construct ‘process’ theories that
systematically entail all four traditions, we are moving towards an
‘evolutionary learning’ theory of politics that may draw on the
strengths of
each tradition while also generating a broadly encompassing
paradigmatic theory
that better addresses political phenomena than any of the separate
theories can
alone.
The two core parts of the course divide into two
distinct
temporal periods. Part Two
takes the course to mid-October – at which point we will take a week
break for
the October 23th class. Part Three takes up the remainder of
the
course, with Thanksgiving Break occurring in the middle of this period.
During
the first break, October 25th, students will write an
initial paper
presenting an empirical puzzle that intrigues them, a set of initial
theoretical perspectives and arguments about the puzzle that they might
pursue,
some ideas about how to develop those arguments more fully and
systematically,
and some strategies for testing the arguments. These
papers are to be emailed to Professor Dodd and the entire
class no later than November 2nd.
We will briefly discuss them at the start of class on November 8th.
Meanwhile, when students return from the Oct. 23th break on
October
30tht, we will start Part
Three of the course, with students expected to have completed
reading
for that week while working on their papers. During Part Three we will
again
look at each theoretical tradition, this time focused more extensively
on
innovations, problems and breakthroughs within and across the
traditions,
particularly as generated by the explicit addition of a social
psychological
perspective on politics. In light of these developments; students will
be
encouraged to adjust and adapt their theoretical arguments in light of
this new
material, where appropriate. At the of Part Three, the last week of
class,
students will make a second set of presentations on the development of
their
individual theories. Students are encouraged but not required to send
class
members any revision/augmentation of their written work that is ready
by the
final class meeting. Final papers, revised to incorporate class
comments, will
be due during finals week.
This organizational design of the course, it must
be
stressed, only provides us an initial starting structure for the
course, with
the instructor reserving the right to alter the design as may prove
necessary
during the course. In particular, since the course is designed for
advanced
doctoral students, each of whom has special needs and concerns, to some
extent
the professor will subject the course, as well as the students, to a
week by
week ‘trial and error’ assessment of how the learning process is
proceeding. If
intervention and alteration in the course is needed, he will take it.
In
particular, he reserves to add additional reading (or remove certain
readings)
if that should prove necessary. Along the way, as the course proceeds,
he will
welcome student input, and will seek to shape assignments and course
structure
in ways that reflect student interests, insights and needs. It is hoped that by the end of the course
students will feel less ‘daunted’ by empirical theory, more assured of
their
own ability to engage in theorizing, and somewhat settled into general
paths of
theoretical exploration and discovery in their own selected areas of
empirical
analysis. A test of goal accomplishment will be the ability to complete
the final
paper in a way that presents an interesting theoretical argument about
some
puzzle central to the students’ interests and doctoral dissertation
research
areas and identifies a research strategy for probing the plausibility
of the
argument.
Most fundamentally, students entering the course
must trust
the professor to guide them through a process of learning to ‘do
theory’ as
best he can, however indirect and erratic that process may appear. I
have
learned to do theory by reading widely across disciplines so as to get
a ‘feel’
for the theoretical process; by reading about theory and theorizing in
the
natural and biological sciences, as well as in the social sciences; by
exploring in depth several contrasting theoretical traditions within
the social
sciences and political science; and by getting my feet wet through
personal
efforts at theorizing. The course will introduce students to the range
of
experiences and literatures that I have embraced in the hope that out
of this
process, and each in his or her own unique way, students will gain some
leverage on the process of doing empirical theory. In the end,
therefore, this
course must be seen not as the ‘last word’ on empirical theory but
simply as an
opening probe, with each student responsible for moving beyond the
course in
response to his or her own reactions to and assessments of the course
material.
The long term test of this course comes in the extent to which students
‘become
theorists’, each true to his or her own voice and vision of politics.
The Questions of
the Course: What does it mean to think as a social choice
theorist, a
social structure theorist, a social learning theorist or a social
evolution
theorist? Can these ways of thinking be combined? Would the separate or
combined ways of theorizing be useful to the student’s specific
empirical
questions or research puzzle? What sort of argument might the student
make
about an empirical puzzle if he or she were operating within each
separate
theoretical tradition? If one were to combine traditions? How might
such
arguments be explored and tested in an empirically compelling manner?
If the
student’s arguments prove empirically plausible, what implications
might the
arguments have for how we better understand politics in the future?
These are
the questions of this course.
Paper assignments
and Grading Standards: I will assign short one to two page
papers
on a weekly basis throughout
the course. These papers will be due
to me and to all other students, by email, no later than
Most importantly, each student is to prepare a class paper on a topic of his or her
choice, subject to the approval by the professor. The purpose of
the class
paper will be to present an empirical theory designed to solve a puzzle
about
politics that interests the student and to identify a strategy for
testing the
puzzle that could be realistically pursued in a doctoral dissertation.
These papers are to be developed in three stages: a first version – Theory Paper I – will be due to all
class members and Professor Dodd by November 4th; a second
version
(with revisions optionally shared with all class members prior to the
last
class) will be presented orally in class on December 6th,
with
students expected to send an email version of this presentation to all
class
members prior to class; and a final
version – Theory Paper II – will be due
during Finals Week.
The class grade will be based on the
following
formula: thirty per cent of the grade will reflect the quality of the
short
weekly papers and class presentations; twenty per cent will be based on
the
first draft of your class paper; ten percent will be based on the
discussion on
December 6th; and forty per cent will be based on the final draft of
the paper,
as handed in during Finals Week. Quality of papers will be judged by
their
originality, creativity, organization, clarity, systematic development,
stylistic/grammatical appropriateness, intellectual compelling-ness,
empirical
plausibility/testability, and human insight. Students will be
encouraged/guided
to clarify as early as possible in the course the empirical puzzle or
special
concern that they want to examine in their final paper and to write
their
weekly paper assignments with a special focus on that puzzle.
Particular weight
will be given to students’ ability to build compelling theoretical
arguments in
their weekly assignments and their success in designing a systematic
argument
in the final paper in ways that are both (1) intellectually valuable,
interesting and persuasive and (2) clearly susceptible to empirical
investigation that is realistic and manageable for a doctoral
dissertation project.
Throughout the course assignments, students should remember that the key to empirical theory is its parsimony, comprehensibility, reasoned quality and empirical applicability. Our search is not for obtuseness, arcane complexity, or showy and discursive coverage of a vast and dense literature, but for clarity, for compelling simplicity, for the identification of a core truth that synthesizes apparent complexity into a comprehensible reality, and for a truth that speaks to and makes sense out of empirically observable reality. In so far as you wish to make a complex argument, do so by combining simple concepts and a parsimonious theory into a broader set of inter-linked theories. There is no better exemplar of complex yet parsimonious empirical theory than the work of Charles Darwin on biological evolution. Students thus are encouraged throughout the course to read Origin of Species, guided in this endeavor by Ernst Mayr’s book, One Long Argument, and to be attentive to the theory of biological evolution as an example of how a complex and seemingly inexplicable reality can be subjected to parsimonious empirical explanation through systematic theorizing. Students are also encouraged, during this course and afterwards, to read widely in the history and philosophy of science, seeking thereby to better appreciate the nature of scientific inquiry and the role of empirical theory in it.
Required
Books:
Paul Pierson, Politics in Time
Michael
Laver, Private Desires, Political Action
Graham Allison, Essence
of Decision
Agryis
and Schoen, Organizational Learning II
Donald
Green and Ian Shapiro, Pathologies of Rational Choice
William
Riker, The Art of Political Manipulation
William
Riker, Liberalism Against Populism
George Tsebeis, Nested Games
Karl Weick, The Social Psychology of Organizing
Karl
Weick, Sensemaking
Bryan
Jones, Reconceiving Decision-Making in Democratic Politics
Bryan
Jones, Politics and the Architecture of Choice
Kenneth Shepsle and Mark Bonchek, Analyzing Politics
George Marcus, Russell Neuman
and Michael MacCuen, Affective Intelligence and
Political
Judgment
Robert Wright, The Moral Animal
Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene
Leslie
Anderson and
Code for Reading Assignments:
The reading for this course is necessarily heavy, given the topics it is covering and the advanced nature of the training it is providing. To guide you as you prioritize the reading, you can utilize the following codes:
***read closely: required for class
**read for major points: will supplement class discussion
*read as time permits: for greater depth, during the course or later
Reading Assignments
Week One: Class Organization
Week Two: Introduction: Science, Theory and Empirical Inquiry
Required
1. The Nature of Political/Social Theory
***Leslie Thiele, Thinking Politics, Chapter One: “Theory and Vision”
***Abraham Kaplan, The Conduct of Inquiry, Chapters 8: “Theories”
***Evelyn Fox Keller, Refiguring Life: Metaphors of Twentieth-Century Biology, “Preface”
and Part One, “Language and Science”
***Karl Deutsch, The Nerves of Government, Pages 3 - 54
2. Examples of Political/Social Theory
***Robert Dahl, Polyarchy, Chapters 1-4
***Anthony Downs, article from An Economic Theory of Democracy
***Garrett Hardin, “The Tragedy of the Commons,” Science 162: 1243-1248 (1968)
**Robert Wright, The Moral Animal, ‘Introduction’***
Class email assignment: Identify one or two empirical puzzles of particular interest two you, which might be the focus of a research project or dissertation: discuss the nature of the puzzles. How do the readings from this week inform your thinking about the puzzles, the use of theory in addressing them, and theoretical perspectives you might draw on in pursuing them?
Individual Email Assignments:
The perspective of Karl Deutsch, and what would be there relevance today?
Thought Question: What is Empirical Theory: how do you know one when you see it, how do you ‘get’ one, of what use is it, and why is it called ‘empirical’?
Week Three: Multiple Perspectives on the World
Required
and Suggested
1. Empirical Complexity, Multiple Dimensions and the Varieties of Theory:
***Richard Dawkins, “Preface” to the 1989 edition of The Selfish Gene
*Ernst Mayr, “Epilogue: Towards a Science of Science” in The
Growth
of Biological Thought
***Gregory Bateson, Mind
and
Nature, Chapter 3, “Multiple Versions of Reality”
***Robert E. Goodin, “Institutions and Their Design,” in Goodin, ed., The Theory of Institutional
Design
2. Explaining the Resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis:
***Allison and Zelikow, The Essence of Decision: All
`
*Breslauer and
Tetlock, Learning in
3. Explaining the Republican Revolution:
**Dodd, “Re-Envisioning Congress: Theoretical Perspectives on Congressional Change” in
Congress Reconsidered, 7th or 8th edition (Available on Dodd’s department homepage; briefly
review if previously read).
4. Explaining the Eurocentric Nature of the Modern World
***Jared Diamond, Guns, Germs and Steel, Prologue, Chapters 1,2,3
5. Explaining the Collapse and Survival of Societies
***Jared Diamond, Collapse, Prologue (Pages 1-24), Chapter Two
Other Suggested
For an introduction to
Email Assignments:
Thought Question:
Why are
multiple perspectives of politics useful in explaining phenomena and
how might
they be useful to your perspective on your puzzle?
Week Four: Social Choice Theory I
NOTE: The purpose of the reading this week is to introduce you to the nature of rational choice theory, to
some of the major foundation themes and works in rational choice analysis, to the utility of rational choice in empirical research, and to some critical assessments of rational choice theory and research.
1. Introduction to Rational Choice Analysis
Michael Laver, Private Desires, Political Action, Chaps 1, 2, 8 ***
Grofman,
ed., Information, Participation and Choice*
Green and Shapiro, Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory, Preface, Chap 1, 2***
Fiorina, “Rational Choice, Empirical Contributions, and the Scientific
2. Rationality and Arrow’s Paradox
Shepsle and Bonchek, Analyzing Politics, Chapters 1-4***
3. The Dilemma of Collective Action
Laver, Private Desires, Chapters 3 and 4***
Mancur Olson, The Logic of Collective Action, Introduction and Chapters 1,2,6*
Green and Shapiro, Pathologies, Chapter 5***
Robert Axelrod, The Evolution of Cooperation, at least the first four chapters**
4. Voting and the Logic of Party Competition
Laver, Private Desires, Chapter 5, 6***
Norman Frolich, Joe
Oppenheimer,
Jeffrey Smith and
Fiorina, Retrospective Voting in American National Elections, Preface and Chaps.
1,9,10**
Melvin J. Hinich and James Enelow, The Spatial Theory of Voting: An Introduction.*
(See also the Enelow
and Hinich
edited volume, Advances in the Spatial Theory of Voting).
Green and Shapiro, Pathologies, Chapter 7***
5. The Theory of Political Coalitions
Laver, Private Desires, Chapter 7***
Riker, The Theory of Political Coalitions, Chapters 1,2,3***
Dodd, “Party Coalitions in Multiparty Parliaments” American Political
Science Review 68: 1093-1117**
5. Context, Choice and Social Evolution
Diamond, Guns, Germs and Steel, Chapters 4,5,6***
***=must read closely
**=read for general illustration and argument
*=read for background or advanced explanation
Email Assignments: To be emailed to all class participants by the morning of class:
1. What is the general defining nature of Rational Choice theory in terms of the type of
core arguments it makes, particularly as seen in the foundation
works?:__Paulina_
2. What is Arrow’s paradox and its significance for understanding politics?__
Jonathan____
3. What is the Collective Action dilemma , its empirical plausibility and research
applicability?__Josh___
4. What are political entrepreneurs and why are they important? _Donald_
5. Why is it rational to vote, how can a voter cast a rational vote, and what is the
relevance of Fiorina’s ‘retrospective’ voting model to these issues?__Dan___
6. What is the Downsian Logic of Party Competition, its empirical plausibility and
research applicability (with special attention to the Frolich, Oppenheimer and
Young article)?_Audrey__
7. What is Riker’s minimum winning coalition, its empirical plausibility and
research
applicability, and how did Dodd utilize it in his book, Coalitions
in
Parliamentary Government?____Jordan_____
8. What are, and how convincing are, the general issues confronting the foundation
themes of rational choice analysis, from the perspective of Green and Shapiro,
particularly with respect to empirical plausibility and research
applicability?_Lance; Jackie__
9. How did context and choice interact in the early stages of food production to shape
the ‘roots’ of ‘guns, germs and steel’ and how do these patterns relate to issues
of rational
choice theory?___Ramon, Upohar___
Week Five: Social Choice Theory II
The Meaning of Social Choice Theory
William
H. Riker, “Political Theory and the
Art of Heresthetics” in
Political
Science: The State of the Discipline, 1983***
Riker, The
Art of Political Manipulation, Preface and Conclusion***
Riker, Liberalism vs. Populism:
a. read Analytical Table of Contents, Chaps 1-5;**
b. read closely pages xi-xii. 1-39, 59-64, 111-113, 115-6, 136***
Shepsle and Bonchek, Analyzing Politics, Chaps 4 thur 6**
2. Strategic Voting
Riker, The Art of Political Manipulation, Chaps 7,8,9,11,5,4***
Riker, Liberalism vs. Populism, Chap 6**
3. Agenda Control
Art, Chaps 3,7,12***
Liberalism vs. Populism, Chap 7**
4. Manipulation of dimensions
Art, 1,2,5,6,10,4***
Liberalism vs Populism, Chaps 8,9**
5. Conclusions, Critiques, Applications and Extensions
Liberalism
vs
Populism, Chap 10***
Green
and Shapiro, Pathologies, Chapter 8**
Jeffrey Friedman, “Economic Approaches to Politics,” in Critical Review,
Vol 9, #1-2, Winter/Spring, 1995; pages 1-24; also see the other critiques and discussions in this volume.*
Tsebelis, Nested Games, Chaps 1--4***
Email Assignments:
1. What is the conflict between liberalism and populism, why does it matter, and how can it be addressed or resolved?__Audrey, Paulina____
2. What is the General Possibility Theorem, why does it exist, and why does it matter?____Ramon_____
3. What is the nature and significance of strategic voting, and what are its implications for empirical theory and research?____Josh, Jackie____
4. What is the nature and significance of agenda control, and what are its implications for empirical theory and research?____Jordan, Lance____
5. What is the nature and significance of dimension manipulation, and what are its implications for empirical theory and research?__Upohar___
6. The “Political Theory and the Art of Heresthetics” Riker discusses some areas that experience equilibria, in contrast to others that do not. What differentiates the former from the latter, in your opinion? What are the implications of your answers for empirical theory and research?___Dan__
7. What are nested games, how vital is this concept for studying politics, and what are its implications for the role of context in political analysis?___Jonathan___
8. On balance, what is the value and the implications of social choice theory for political inquiry?___Donald___
:
Week Six: Social Structure I
I. The Idea of Social Structure
a. groups and social structure
i.
hunter-gathers,
farmers and the evolution of social structure
Diamond, Guns, Germs and Steel, Chs 4-10 ***
ii. economic arrangements and social class
Walton, “Social Class and Inequality,” Chapter Three
in Walton, Sociology and Critical Inquiry ***
` Manley, “The Significance of Class in American History
and Politics,” in Dodd and Jillson, New Perspectives **
iii. race,
ethnicity and gender
Hero, “Two-Tiered Pluralism” and McDonaugh, “Gender Politics”
In Dodd and Jillson, New Perspectives **
iv.
groups, political geography and
‘false consciousness’
Key, “Introduction,” Southern Politics **
b. socio-political divisions and structural politics
i.
the power
elite
Mills, The Power Elite*
ii.
factions, cleavages and
institutional design
Madison, Federalist #10***
Dahl, A Preface to Democratic Theory, Chs 1,3,4,5*
Lipset and Rokkan, “Cleavage Structures, Party Systems, and
Voter Alignments,” In Lipset and Rokkan, eds.,
Party Systems and Voter Alignments **
iii. associations,
political geography and ‘ path dependencies’
Putnam, Making Democracy Work, Chs. 5 and 6**
iv. pluralism in the real world
Dahl, Who Governs? *
c. regimes, state structures and authority arrangements
i. socialism vs capitalism
Przeworski, Democracy and the State, Ch 3**
ii. dictatorship and democracy
Foreward by Friedman and Scott, Preface
and Chapter 7*
iii.
institutional design, social
relations and system ‘outputs’
Skocpol, “The Origins of Social Policy…” in Dodd and
Jillson, Dynamics of American Politics ***
Diamond,
iv. the state and revolution
Skocpol, States and Social Revolution, Read Preface,
Chs 1,2,3,4, pages 275-283, and Ch 7*
II. The Study of Social Structure
a.
middle-range
and functional analysis
Merton, On Theoretical Sociology, Chs. 2,3*
b.
critical
sociology
Walton, Sociology and Critical Inquiry, pages 1-63*
Pages 64-82 are recommended
c.
structural
analysis, big-time
Tilly, Big Structures, Large Processes, Huge Comparisons***
III. Social Choice and Social-Structural Analysis
a. Przeworski, Democracy and the Market, Chs 3,4, “Conclusions”**
b. Tsebalis, Nested Games, review Ch 1, read Chs 5-8**
c.
Email Assignments:
1. To what extent is the emergence of social structure (a) shaped by deep background
factors such as climate and geography, (b) a product of direct human agency, foresight and choice, (c) an outgrowth of unseen autocatalytic processes and (d) a result of other factors?
See Diamond, Guns, Germs and Steel: review Chs. 1-3; read Chs. 4-10__Josh, Upohar__
2. How critical are such social categories as class, ethnicity, race and gender for comprehending socio-political reality, and in what ways do these concepts qualify, inform or move analysis beyond reliance on social choice as one’s primary strategy of inquiry? How does critical attention to history, and to such things as the distribution of classes or races geographically, help inform our interpretation of their role and significance in politics? ___Jackie______
3. what extent and in what ways do socio-political divisions have a ‘life of their own’ or a consequential significance that requires political analysts to recognize and study them as complements to and/or as objects of study separate from and beyond social choice concerns? Aside from the readings, see also (if possible) W. Douglas Rae and Michael Taylor, The Analysis of Political Cleavages._____Lance______
4. How real and consequential are regime differences, state structures, institutional design and authority arrangements, as concerns separate from individual preferences and choice, and how critical and in what ways is the recognition of and study of such factors critical to political analysis, complementing, informing or moving beyond social choice?____Audrey____
_
5. In what ways do the study of “big structures, large processes and huge comparisons” have a distinctive place in political inquiry, separate from, complementary to and/or blended with social choice analysis, and how might political inquiry proceed to include these forms of analysis – conceptually, methodologically and theoretically? Finally, is an productive interplay possible between the study of ‘big structures’ and social choice analysis in the study of American political development? How so?___Jonathan____
6. As seen in Democracy and the Market, how does Przeworski integrate the awareness of social structure with the analytic strategies of rational choice, what are his major arguments and contributions as he pursues this inquiry, how valuable is it as an understanding, and how might it be improved?____Paulina______
7. As seen in Nested Games, how might an awareness of socio-political structure and the analytic strategies of social choice be combined in ways that inform and clarify the role of both in shaping politics and political outcomes? In what ways might Tsebelius’s work be informed and improved on by a more self-conscious attention to social structure? What are the implications of ‘nested games’ for the assessment of policy making processes?___Jordan, Dan____
8. How did social structure and political
geography affect
the capacity of Nicaragua to democratize?____Ramon, Donald_____
Week Seven: Social Learning I
I. The Idea of Learning in the Social Sciences
Deutsch, The Nerves of Government, Chs. 5-6, 8-10, 14***
II. What We Learn: Some Illustrations
a. Learning the Modern World
Jared Diamond, Guns, Germs and Steel, Chs. 11-14***
Jared Diamond, Collapse, Chs 7-8, 13**
b. Ideas, Institutions and Ideologies
Friedrich, Constitutional Government and Democracy, Chs 1, 14,
18***
Weaver and Rockman, Do Institutions Matter?, pp. 1-41, 272-343**
c. Learning and Culture: Beliefs, Identities and Attitudes
Wright, Nonzero, pp 285-297***
Inglehart, Culture Shift, Chs 1,2,13***
Hanson, “Liberalism and the Course of American Social
Welfare Policy,” in Dynamics of American Politics.***
Green, Palmquist and Schickler, Partisan Hearts and Minds, 1, 5,6,8**
Reviewing a Classic:
Almond and Verba, The Civic Culture, Chs 1,2,3, 6-12*
Barry, Sociologists, Economists and Democracy, Chs 1, 3, 4, 7, 8*
Pateman, The Disorder of Women: Democracy, Feminism and
Political
Theory; Ch 7: The Civic Culture: A Philosophic Critique,
pp.
141-178.
III. Why, When and How We Learn
a. Cognitive Capacity, Anxiety and Learning
Graber, Processing Politics, Ch 2, 3***
Bateson, “The Cybernetics of ‘Self’,” 34 Psychiatry 1, also in
G. Bateson, Steps to an Ecology of Mind. *
Marcus and MacKuen, “Anxiety, Enthusiasm, and the Vote:
The Emotional Underpinnings of Learning and Involvement
During Presidential Campaigns,” APSR 87: 672-85.***
of American Politics, pp. 331-340**
b. Socialization, Experience and Observation
Easton/Dennis, Children in the Political System, Chs 1,2,15, 16***
Hershey, “Campaign Learning, Congressional Behavior and Policy
Change,” in Wright, et. al., Congress and Policy Change.***
Kuhn,
The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions * Review
c. Structure-induced Learning
Huckfeldt and Beck, Dynamics of American Politics,
Cohen, Radicals,
Reformers,
Reactionaries,
Review: Putnam, Making Democracy Work, Chs 4, 5**
Dodd, “Political Learning and Political Change,” 340-348**
d. Learning through Metaphorical Reasoning and Persuasion
Mansbridge, “Politics as Persuasion,” in Dynamics of
American
Politics***
McPherson, Abraham
Lincoln and
the Second American
Revolution, Chs. 2,3,5,6 ***
Holzer,
Edition,” Introduction, Chs. 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, Epilogue *
Dodd, “Political Learning and Political Change,” 348-355 **
IV. Towards an Organizational Model of Learning
Argyris and Schon, Organizational Learning II – all ***
Dodd, “Political Learning and Political Change,” 355-364 **
Email Assignments:
the institutions that govern the contemporary industrialized democracies of Europe and America; how and why has the subsequent emergence of nationalism and similar kinds of ideologies arisen in ways that complicates the operation of these institutions; and how and why have the institutions proven effective or ineffective in managing such ideological and cleavage conflicts? _____
how might such persuasive activity influence societal and political change; what are the implications of your answer for fruitful ways to study politics; and to what extent might (or might not) the persuasive efforts of Abraham Lincoln illustrate the value of such studies? ______
Week Eight:
Socio-Cultural
Evolution I/Empirical Inquiry and Research Designs
I.
Socio-Cultural
Evolution:
a.
Thinking
about
the long-term
1.
Diamond,
Guns,
Germs and Steel, Ch 14 and Epilogue
Part
IV is recommended as time permits
2.
Diamond,
Collapse,
Prologue, pp 1-24, Ch 2, Chs 14-16
3.
Wright,
Nonzero
b.
Conceptualizing
the Study of Socio-cultural Evolution
1.
Tilly,
“The
Invisible Elbow,” in Tilly, Roads from the Past to the
Future, Ch 3.***
2.
Weick, The Social Psychology of Organizing, Chs. 1-4**,
5***
3.
Heclo, “Ideas, Institutions and Interests,” Ch 16 in Dynamics**
4. Pierson, Politics
in Time
c.
Some
Examples
1.
Riker,
Liberalism
against
2.
Scott
James and
Brian Lawson, “The Political Economy of Voting Rights Enforcement in
93
(a) (March 1999): 115-31.**
II.
Thinking
about
Research: Ideas, Theory, and Empirical Inquiry
a.
Inquiry,
Discovery and Justification: Logic-in-use vs Reconstructed
Logic
1.
Kaplan,
“Methodology,” Ch 1 in Kaplan, The Conduct of Inquiry***
2.
Union
Democracy,” in
Research***
III.
Learning Democracy (LD) as an
Exploration of SocioCulture Evolution and
Politics that
illustrates “Logic-in-use”, Discovery and “Reconstructed
Logic”
a.
The
Structure and
General Findings of the First Draft, 1997
See
“Summary Handout” of the First Draft.
b.
The Published Book: Parts I and II on the
1990 Election
1.
From
Puzzle to
Facts to Specific Questions
LD,
(Review
remainder of Ch. 1 and Chapter Two)
2.
From
Questions to
Theory To Specific Applications of
Theory
to Hypotheses
LD,
Chapter Four: pp. 117-138
3.
From
Hypotheses
to Measurement to Clarifications of
Empirical Patterns and Hypotheses
LD,
Chapter
Five
4.
From
Clarifications to Specific Hypotheses Testing to
Analytic
Refinements to New Puzzles and Questions
LD,
Chapter Six
IV.
The
Research
Design as a Guide for Discovery/A Formula for Explanation
a.
The
Logic of
Discovery and Consequent Components of Research Designs
King,
Keohane and Verba, Designing Social Inquiry,
b.
Research
Designs
in the Stage of Discovery:
See
“Handout I”
c.
Research
Designs
in the Stage of Justification
See
“Handout II”
Email Assignments:
1. How
does the logic of evolution explain the
emergence of the modern political world
(from the evolution of diseases to that
of political systems, as seen in Diamond’s
Guns, Germs and Steel),
what kind of abstract model for political evolution is
implicit in this argument, and how can
the arguments derived from this logic and
model-building be explored through a
science of history, as discussed by Diamond in
his epilogue?________
Why do some societies ‘collapse’ whereas
others don’t,
how do they tend to collapse
(slowly, suddenly, etc), why do
societies fail to forestall collapse through good
decision-making (and how does ‘rational
choice’ contribute to this?)? Through was
kinds of research designs and logic can
we test and refine these arguments (such as
comparative methods and natural
experiments, and how might these research
strategies relate to specific research
puzzles on ‘collapse’ relevant to political
inquiry? Finally, what does Diamond suggest
that can we learn/are learning from
past human experience with collapse that
informs us today, and in what
ways may there be hope that ‘collapse’
can be avoided for the contemporary
world?_______
3.
What
does Wright mean by ‘nonzero’, how does is relate
to rational choice and yet move beyond rational choice, and how has the
propensity towards ‘nonzero’ generated the core processes that he sees
driving
socio-cultural evolution and the emergence of modern civilization. What
factors
along the way have proven critical to this emergence? What implications
does
his argument have for contemporary and future politics, and the vital
topics
for political inquiry?_______
4.
How
do the ideas from Tilly, Weick and Heclo mesh
together to provide ways to conceptualize socio-cultural change, and
what is
the relevance of this way of thinking to political research,
particularly your
own?___._____
5.
How
do the concepts and mechanisms identified by
Pierson shape, constrain and ‘guide’ socio-cultural evolution?__________
6.
How
does the work of Riker on the pre-Civil War period
and James and Lawson on the post-Civil War period illustrate
rational-based
processes that yield unanticipated developments in political
arrangements, and
how might these illustrations serve as broader examples of/challenges
to
socio-cultural evolution?_______
7.
Why
does Kaplan emphasize ‘scientific autonomy’ in his
discussion of ‘The Logic of Inquiry’, what does he mean by ‘logic in
use’ and
‘reconstructed logic’ in the context of scientific autonomy, how do
discovery
and justification relate to these different logics, what are the
general
implications of his analysis for ‘the tasks of methodology’ and
particularly
for methodology in the social sciences? How does the essay by Lipset
illustrate
and inform that arguments that Kaplan is making?________
8.
With
respect to the assigned portions of Learning
Democracy, by what logic, empirical discussion and argumentation
process in
earlier chapters and sections do the authors generate their
retrospective vs
prospective hypotheses at the end of
Chapter 4 (pp. 127-138), how then to they relate these
hypotheses to
specific concepts and measures, and how do they structure and present
the
testing of their hypotheses and analytic refinements, and how do they
relate
their tests back to the original puzzle and forward to new questions
and
puzzles? How extensively does their presentation and analysis depart
from the
first draft, as seen in the handout on it, so that the final draft is a
product
of discovery and reconstructed logic?______
9.
What
do King, Keohane and Verba see as the logic of
scientific discovery, what are the major components of research designs
that
follow from this logic, and what themes emerge from this discussion
that help
one think about the development of research designs (with respect to
the role
of theory, explanatory leverage, uncertainty and rival hypotheses). How
can
early research designs, focused more on probing and discovery, reflect
the
concerns of the authors, and does the handout on early designs provide
an
adequate guide for doing so (if not, what should be added/deleted)? How
might
refinement of research designs later in a project as it approaches the
stage of
research justification and reconstructed logic reflect their concerns,
and does
the handout on such designs provide an adequate guide for doing so (if
not,
what should be added/deleted)?________
Week Nine: Doing Theory I:
I.
Different
Approaches to Theory and Empirical Inquiry
a.
Empirical
Theory
as an
1. as reflective ‘thought games’ to imagine
and model
how the world
works
about gravity***
Hardin, “The Cybernetics of Competition: A
Biologist’s
View of
Society,”
Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, Autumn,
1963.**
2. through simulation to explore the implications of imagined
models
Axelrod, The
Evolution of Cooperation,
b.
Theory-Driven
Research: To Guide Empirical Discovery
1. Theories, Alternative Arguments and Quantitative Inquiry
Binder, Stalemate, Chs 1
and 2; and “Congress,
the Executive and
Public Policy,” in
Congress Reconsidered VII.***
2. Theories, Alternative
Arguments and Qualitative Inquiry
Skocpol, Review: “The Origins of
Social Policy…”*
3.
Modeling, Alternative Arguments,
and the
Integration of Qualitative
and Quantitative Inquiry
Lazar,
“The Free Trade Epidemic of the 1860s and Other Outbreaks of Economic
Discrimination,” World Politics, Vol 51 (July, 1999), #4:
447-83.**
c.
Research-driven
Theorizing
1. Lazarsfeld,
“The American Soldier,” Public Opinion Quarterly,
Fall,
1949***
2. Skocpol, States
and Social Revolution, review Preface, Ch 1.*
d.
Integrating
Theory and Research: Towards a Paradigmatic Science
1. The Logic of Paradigm-Seeking
Aldrich and Ostrom,
“Regularities, Verification and
Systematization,”
American Behavioral Scientist, Vol 23, pp 861-83*
2. An
Illustrative Effort
Riker, Review “The Two-Party System and
Duverger’s
Law,” APSR
1982.*
II.
The
Interplay of
Theory and Research: Some Guidelines
Email Assignment:
Prepare a short statement of the work you are developing in Theory
Paper I that
can introduce the class to the broad outlines of your project.
Additionally,
indicate the ways in which the reading for this week and the
perspectives on
theory presented in Part I of the course relate to your project.
Week
Ten: Social Choice IV: Expanding and Refining Our Understanding of
Choice
Processes
a.
Bounded
Rationality and
Choice
Jonathan
Bendor, “Bounded Rationality in Political Science,” manuscript, Center
for
Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, October 7, 1999.***
Bryan
D. Jones, “Bounded Rationality”, Annual Review of Political Science,
1999, 2: 297-321**
Bryan
D. Jones, The Architecture of Choice—all( read the first
chapter
closely,
and then read through the
other chapters for major arguments and
illustrations)***
b.
Reasoning, Crisis, Learning and Choice
Marcus, Neuman and
MacKuen, Affective Intelligence and Political
Judgment***
George E. Marcus and
Michael B. MacKuen, Review:
“Anxiety, Enthusiasm,
and the Vote: Emotional
Underpinnings of Learning and Involvement
during Presidential Campaigns,” APSR
Vol 87,
#3, September, 1993, 72-685.**
Sniderman, et. al., Reasoning
and Choice 1,9*
c. The
Paradox of Temporal Choice
Jones, Re-Conceiving
Decision-making in Democratic Politics, Part I**
d.
Rationality, Social Psychology and the Cycles
of Choice
Hirschman, Shifting
Involvements: all (read the first chapter closely and then
read through the other
chapters for the major points and illustrations)**
e.
Emotions
and Political Leadership:
crisis, emotional upheaval and transformation
Carwardine, Lincoln,
Chapter One
Joshua Wolf Shenk, “
Guelzo, Abraham Lincoln,
Redeemer President, Chs. 3 and 4
Email
assignments:
a.
What
is bounded rationality,
according to somewhat distinct perspectives of Bendor and Jones, how does it differ from pure ‘procedural’
rational choice analysis as discussed in Part II of the course by Laver
and
others, when and where is it most likely to apply, and what general
implications does bounded rationality hold for political inquiry?_____
b.
What
does Jones mean by the
adaptive and goal-oriented nature of human behavior
(Architecture, Ch 2),
why does he see humans as adaptive actors (Arch., Ch 1), and
what are the implications of
his argument for choice theory and political
inquiry?_____
c.
What
does Jones mean by the
procedural limits on adaptability (Architecture, Ch 3),
disproportionate
information processing (Jones, Architecture, 4), and
substantive limits
on comprehensive rationality (Architecture, 5), and what are the
implications
of his arguments for political inquiry?______
d.
What
is the nature of
organizational adaptation according to Jones (Architecture , Ch
6, 7),
and what are the implications of this and his other arguments for the
evolution
of institutions and human adaptability in the political and social
world (Architecture,
Ch 8,9)?______
e.
What
do Marcus, Neuman and
MacKuen mean by dual affective subsystems (Ch 4),
why is it important for political science to
begin
to recognize the existence of these subsystems within the human brain
(Chs
1-3), and what are the implications of these subsystems for our
understanding
of human behavior (Chs 4,5), political judgment (Ch 6) and affective
politics
(Ch 7)?_______
f.
What
does Jones mean (Re-Conceiving
Decision-making) by the paradox of temporal political choice, and
what are
its implications for political inquiry?____
g.
What
is Hirschman’s argument
in Shifting Involvements, what does it mean for the stability
and
predictability of citizen agenda preferences and priorities in
politics, and
how might it apply to the awakenings of religious fervor in politics
and the
path of such developments across time?______
h.
What
are the implications of
‘social choice IV’ for the issues raised about cycling, collective
action,
learning and political adaptation in Part II of the course? How might
those
implications relate to political science research, as in your study of
geography, architecture and choice processes
across
time in the early Republic?
Week Eleven: Social
Structure
II
a.
Overview
Tilly,
“Social Itineraries”, Chapter 1 in Tilly, Roads from the Past to
the Future***
Carmines and Huckfeldt, “Political Behavior: An Overview”
in Goodin and Klingemann,
The New Handbook of Political Science***
b.
Groups,
Identities
and Collective Action
Clarence
Stone, “Group Politics Reexamined: From Pluralism to Political
Economy,”
In Dodd and Jillson, The Dynamics
of American Politics***
Guttman,
“Identity and Democracy: A Synthetic Perspective,” and Calvert,
“Identity,
Expression and Rational-Choice Theory,” in
Katznelson
and Milner***
c.
Social
Identities
and Group Politics as a Contested Construction of Reality
Wallace,
“Revitalization Movements,” American Anthropologist, Vol 58,
1956***
Carwardine,
Lincoln, Chs 2,3, 5, 6, 7** (Ch 4 optional)
d.
Social
Networks
as Structures of Socio-Political Influence
Wellman,
“Structural Analysis: from method and metaphor to theory and
substance.”***
Granovetter,
“The Strength of Weak Ties: A Network Theory Revisited,” Sociological
Theory (1983), 201-33.**
Padgett
and Ansell, “Robust Action and the Rise of the Medici, 1400-1434,” American
Journal of Sociology, 6 (May
1993), 1259-1319***
e.
Contexts,
Group
Politics and Political Empowerment
Guelzo,
A. Lincoln: Redeemer President, Chapter 3: The Doctrine of
Necessity**
Huckfeldt
and Beck, “Contexts, Intermediaries, and Political Behavior,” in
The Dynamics of American Politics***
Peggy
Kohn, Radical Space: Building the House of the People, All*
f.
Networks,
context
and the emergence of new structural relations
Tilly,
“Parliamentarization of Popular Contention in
Tilly, Roads from Past to Future***
Email Assignments:
1. What is Tilly’s
argument
in “Social Itineraries” and what are its implications for how we take
into
account ‘social structure’ in the study of politics? How does the
discussion of
Carmines and Huckfeldt inform Tilly’s argument?____
2. What is Stone’s
challenge
to the traditional ways of thinking about group politics, and how might
it
inform studies of unusual patterns of policy action such as your study
of the
voting rights of felons?_______
3. What is
‘identity’ and
what is its relevance to the study of groups and politics?______
4. What are
‘revitalization
movements’ and how can they influence politics and political change, as
illustrated by the rise of Christian evangelicals in the early 19th
century?______
5. What is network
analysis,
according to Wellman, how has it developed, and in what ways does
Granovetter
illustrate its counterintuitive explanatory power?______
6. How do Padgett
and Ansell
utilize network analysis in their work on the rise of the Medici in
7.What is Peggy
Kohn’s
argument in Radical Space, how does she develop and defend it, and of
what
relevance might it be to your work on the Congress?______
8. What is Tilly’s
argument
in “Parliamentarization,” how does it relate to context, networks and
political
change, and how might the style of analysis demonstrated by Tilly in
this essay
apply to the study of politics and change in other social
settings?______
Week Twelve: Social
Learning
II
1. Towards Theories of Learning: A
Sensemaking
Perspective
Weick, Sensemaking,
all***
Weick, The Social
Psychology of Organizing, Ch 5.**
Dodd, “Making Sense Out
of Our Exceptional Senate,” in
Exceptionalism, edited by Bruce I.
Oppenheimer.***
2.
Single-
Loop vs Double-Loop Learning
Review: Argyris and Schon, Organizational Learning II – all
3. Learning As Experience-Informed Reasoning
Jack Levy, “Learning and Foreign Policy: Sweeping a
Conceptual MinefieldJack.” International Organization
Vol. 48, No. 2 (Spring, 1994), pp. 279-312: available on
JStor
Kassel
Founding Era: Establishing a Capitol City
4. Learning
as Metaphorical Reasoning and Transformative Perceptions
Review:
Dodd, “Political Learning and Political Change” in Dynamics
Review:
McPherson, Abraham Lincoln and the Second American
Revolution, Chs. 2,3,5,6
Carwardine,
“The Power of Public Opinion,” Chapter Two in
Profiles
in Power**
5.
Learning
as an Interactive Product of Ideas, Institutions and Interests
Review: Heclo, “Ideas,
Institutions and Interests,” Ch 16 in Dynamics
Levine,
ChaptersNine and Ten, Popular Voices in Latin American
Catholicism**
Email Assignments:
a.
What
is ‘sensemaking’ as a
concept, as discussed by Weick in Chapters 1-3 and 8 of Sensemaking
and
why would attentiveness to ‘sensemaking’ matter to empirical theories
of
politics?_____
b.
What
is the difference
between ‘belief-driven’ and ‘action-driven’ sensemaking, when are these
different forms of sensemaking likely to be relevant, and what is the
theoretical significance of the different forms of sensemaking, as
discussed by
Weick in Chapters 4-7?______
c.
How
does Dodd use the
different forms of sensemaking to contrast the U.S. House vs the
Senate, how
helpful is his argument in comparing the two institutions, and how
might the
development and evidence in behalf of the argument be improved?___
d.
How
might the concepts of
belief-driven and action-driven
sensemaking serve to help understand and address the dilemmas
associated with single-loop vs
double-loop learning, particularly the
transitions from one to the other?___
e.
What
is ‘experiential
learning’ and how might it inform theories of
politics and political change, as seen in the
founding era and the
work on establishing a
f.
What,
according to Dodd, are
the roles of metacrises, metaphors and
metalogue in political change, and how do
leaders
such as
illustrate the role and power of these
phenomena, as
for example
in the use of metaphors and metalogue in
giving
focus to revitalization movements such as the evangelical awakening of
the
1850s?___
g.
What,
according to Heclo, is
the interactive effect of ideas, institutions
and interests, and how might new ideas (or
metaphors) such as
liberation theology, when pushed by
intermediaries
between big
structures and everyday life, help generate
transformative learning
within such complex and entrenched
institutions as
the Catholic Church, and what are the implications of this process for
political
inquiry?_______
Week Thirteen:
Socio-Cultural
Evolution II
1. Towards a Social-Psychological Model of SocioCultural Evolution
Weick, The Social Psychology of Organizing, Chs. 5-9***
Jones, Reconceiving
Decision-Making, Part II***
2. Looking Forward: Towards a Genetic Perspective on Socio-Political Evolution
a. Foundations: Genes and Human Evolution
Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, Chapters 1-7***
b. Genetic Evolution and Human Socio-Political Relations
Hawkins, The Selfish Gene, Chs. 8-9***
Robert Wright, The Moral Animal, Chs. 1-14***
Note: Remainder of book is highly recommended
c. The Prisoner’s Dilemma and Socio-Political Cooperation
Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, Chapters 10, 12***
Axelrod, The Evolution of Cooperation, at least the first four chapters**
d. Genes and Political Behavior
Marilyn Brewer, 2000. “Superordinate Goals Vs. Superordinate Identity as Bases of
Cooperation.” In Social Identity
Processes, ed., Capozz and Brown.
Orbell, John, et. al., 2004. APSR, (March): 1-17***
John Hibbing and John Alford, 2004. “Accepting Authoritative Decisions: Humans
as Wary Cooperators.” American Journal of Political Science 35(January): 62-
76.***
Alford, Funk and
APSR 99 (May): 153-167***
e. “Selfishness” and Cooperation: Extensions of Formal and Evolutionary Analysis
Shepsle and Bonchek, Analyzing Politics, Summary of Part II (Pages 192-194) and
Chapters 8-10** (Be sure to read Conclusion on pages 295-296)
Wright, Nonzero, ‘Introduction’ and Chs. 1,2***
Email Assignments:
1. What does Weick mean in The Social Psychology of Organizing, Ch. Six, by ‘enactment’ ‘selection,’ and ‘retention’ and what might they mean, in simple terms, in the realm of political analysis?_________
2. What does Weick mean by a ‘natural selection model’ of sociocutlural evolution and what are its broad implications for political analysis, Chs Five and Nine?________
3. What, according to Jones (Reconceiving, Part II) is the paradox of issue evolution, how might it be understood as a form of single vs double loop learning, and might awareness of this paradox inform our understanding of natural selection, political adaptation, and sociocultural evolution? _______
4. What are genes and gene selfishness, as explicated by Dawkins, and how does it relate to the role of replicators, the importal coils and survival machines in his discussion of biological evolution? See Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, Chapters 1-4; also Wright, The Moral Animal, Introduction and Chapter 1. ____
5. What explains aggression, how does this relate to Dawkin’s discussion of ESS (please define), what are the implication s of this discussion both for species and for the relations within a species, including ‘altruistic’ relations and general family life?________
See Dawkins, Chs. 5-7 and Wright, The Moral Animal, Chs. 2-7.________
6. How does gene selfishness explain generational-based and gender-based conflict,
and what are the detailed implications of this explanation for human socio-political
relations? See Dawkins, Chs 8,9; and Wright, The Moral Animal, Chs. 2-7. ________
7. What is reciprocal altruism’, why does it exist, and what kinds of general implications does it have for our species? Dawkins, Chapter 10; and Wright, The Moral Animal, pp 170-191 ____ ____
8..What
is Robert
Axelrod’s contribution to our understanding of the implications of
reciprocal
altruism, as developed in his work on the prisoners dilemma and
cooperation?
9. What are the arguments and evidence in behalf of a relationship between genes and the political behavior of humans? See the articles by Orbell, et. al., Hibbings, et. al., and Alford, et. al. ________
10. Might there be broader connections between genetic propensities and strategies of cooperation, or between genetic propensities and such things as social contracts, populist agendas, and so forth, as generated by modern social choice theory. In other words, address the potential interplay between Dawkins, Wright, Axelrod and the discussions of Riker on Liberalism vs Populism and of Shepsle/Bonchek, especially as seen in pages 192-194._______
11. To what extent might gene selfishness and genetic inheritance paradoxically have
constructive implications for human survival, socio-cultural evolution, and the
creation of modern civilization? See Wright, Nonzero, Introduction and Chapters 1,2. _______
Week Fourteen:
Doing Theory
II: Class Discussions of Theory Papers