Gov 97

Reading Guide for Globalization (Week #12)

2007-04-30T14:05:00.000-07:00

The reading guide for this week is now available at:

http://www.fxshen.com/gov97/Gov97_Week12_ReadingGuide_Globalization.pdf

Readings for Week 12 (Globalization)

2007-04-29T15:20:00.000-07:00

Here are links to the reading materials for this week on Globalization:

[NOTE: These 3 links are now dead. The articles can be retrieved via e-resources at Harvard Libraries]

[1] Hoffman article
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~fxshen/gov97/Hoffman_2002_ClashOfGlobalizations.pdf

[2] Huntington article:
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~fxshen/gov97/Huntington_1993_ClashOfCivilizations.pdf

[3] Additional Huntington interviews:
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~fxshen/gov97/HuntingtonInterviews.pdf

Reading Guide for Development (Week #11)

2007-04-25T22:16:00.000-07:00

The reading guide for this week is now available at:

http://www.fxshen.com/gov97/Gov97_Week11_Development.pdf

Reading Guide for Peace (Week #10)

2007-04-17T00:07:00.000-07:00

The reading guide for the week is now available at:

http://www.fxshen.com/gov97/Gov97_Week10_ReadingGuide_Peace.pdf

Reading Guide for the State (Week #9)

2007-04-10T21:51:00.000-07:00

The reading guide for the week is now available at:

http://www.fxshen.com/gov97/Gov97_Week9_ReadingGuide_State.pdf

Hypothetical for Response: Research Design

2007-04-10T21:43:00.000-07:00

1. Please consider the following hypothetical and respond.

2. After examining all of the issues that political scientists study, the Harvard Government Department has decided that the most important issue for its students to study is the state in Africa. Because the need for new information and analysis is so pressing, they have also decided that in addition to senior theses, every junior and sophomore will write a thesis too. Every thesis must somehow contribute to our knowledge about the state and Africa.

3. Based on your reading of Herbst, and on whatever other backgrounds (courses, policy work, etc) you have at your disposal, come up with a rough sketch of the following three components of a thesis proposal:

a) The general topic

b) The specific question you’re going to try to answer in the thesis (or put another way, the puzzle that you’re going to try to solve)

c) How you’re going to go about answering the question / solving the puzzle

4. Here is one example off the top of my head:

a) General topic: the relationship of missionaries to state formation in Africa

b) Specific question: Are African states that experienced greater presence of European Christian missionaries during colonialism subsequently more likely to be states with stronger internal control?

c) Methods & Evidence: I will select two countries alike in many ways except that one had high presence of missionaries, and the other had low presence. I will then look at their subsequent postcolonial experiences, and see if there are linkages to the missionary historical record. I will be examining first-person accounts (e.g. diaries, letters), formal statements (e. treaties, contracts), economic data if it’s available (e.g. spending on churches in the countries), and social data (e.g. data on converts if available).

5. Here are some initial tips for coming up with the research design:

a) Think about what’s missing from the account, and then come up with a research design that might help to fill this gap in knowledge.

b) If there’s something you’re always fascinated with (e.g. religion, the Internet, interest groups, farming, etc), see if there’s some way to work it into a thesis topic.

c) Think about the ways in which the other theories you know might challenge or nuance the Herbst account. Can this be turned into a thesis research topic?

Reading Guide for Democracy (Week #8)

2007-04-03T13:06:00.003-07:00

The reading guide for the week is now available at:

http://www.fxshen.com/gov97/Gov97_Week8_ReadingGuide_Democracy.pdf

Democracy 5: Evaluate the Explanations

2007-04-03T13:06:00.001-07:00

You don’t have the necessary statistical background to challenge the empirical findings, but you do have plenty of background to evaluate the explanations for the statistical results presented. You’ll note that they employ an inductive method, with their explanations coming after they identify significant statistical relationships. They tell different stories to explain the relationships. Pick one of the stories and evaluate it. Do you agree? Would you tell a different story?

Democracy 4: Find a part of the text you don't understand

2007-04-03T13:05:00.001-07:00

There are many points in the text where a summary statement is made. Even if you don’t understand the statistics behind the conclusion, the statement might strike you as correct, incorrect, provocative, or confusing. If there are places in the text you want to shine the spotlight, we will go through them in section.

Democracy 3: What’s the ‘big idea’? What do the authors actually find?

2007-04-03T13:04:00.002-07:00

The authors present a series of findings, big and small, through the course of this text. Especially with all of the statistical jargon that you don’t understand, it may be easy to lose the big picture in what they describe as a “forest of numbers”. But step back and try to summarize the work in your head. Pinpoint a few of the findings and tie them together for yourself. Then try to figure out: what’s the big idea being advanced here? What theory has been proven? What arrow diagram would you draw up on the chalkboard? (Note: Yes, you can bet that someone will be asked to draw their diagram on the board!)

Democracy 2: Remembering Arendt: Do you like this approach more?

2007-04-03T13:04:00.001-07:00

It would be difficult to find a more stark contrast in analytical methods than this book following on the heels of Arendt. Which approach do you like more, and why? Are you making your decision based on subject-specific criteria (e.g. it’s better to study X with method Z), or are you making a general claim (e.g. it’s almost always better to use method Z than method Y).

Democracy 1: Defining Democracy (for empirical analysis)

2007-04-03T12:59:00.000-07:00

This week we will talk about definitions in a new way, through the notion of “operationalization”. You’ll see this concept a few times in the book, and it means the process by which you translate (i.e. “operationalize”) an abstract concept such as democracy into a measurable number. We will walk through this process in class, but you should think about it before hand.

First, think about what ‘democracy’ as a regime type is? What constitutes a democracy? You can likely think of multiple definitions, so the follow-up question is: which definition(s) do you want to use? And this leads you to ask: for what use? Try to figure out what the authors’ objectives are, and consequently how they define democracy. What are the benefits of this approach? What are the drawbacks? Did the authors do the best they could? Could they have tried something else?

Reading Guide for Totalitarianism (Week #7)

2007-03-19T22:40:00.001-07:00

The reading guide for the week is now available at:

http://www.fxshen.com/gov97/Gov97_Week7_ReadingGuide_Totalitarianism.pdf

Totalitarianism #5: The future of totalitarianism

2007-03-19T22:39:00.000-07:00

In her preface to Part III, Arendt writes that she was articulating and elaborating questions “which my generation had been forced to live for the better part of its adult life: What happened? Why did it happen? How could it have happened?” (xxiv). What questions, if any, does your generation have to ask about totalitarianism? Does Arendt’s writing offer any guidance for your questions, or your answers, related to totalitarianism? Or, with the dismantling of the Soviet Union, the rise of the international economic system, and global communications, is Arendt’s theory dated? Find some specific portion of Arendt’s study that either, and evaluate whether in today’s world it is illuminating or irrelevant.

Totalitarianism #4: The end of history?

2007-03-19T22:38:00.002-07:00

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Francis Fukuyama argued that we have arrived at the “end of history” by which he means: “What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of postwar history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.”

Do you agree with this position? Is totalitarianism an out-moded concept in today’s world? What would Arendt say to this?

Totalitarianism #3: Types of totalitarianism?

2007-03-19T22:38:00.001-07:00

One of the primary critiques of Arendt’s argument is that she lumps together different types of totalitarianism. But she’s not the only one to do this. President Harry S. Truman (proud son of the state of Missouri) is reported to have said: “There isn’t any difference in totalitarian states. I don’t care what you call them, Nazi, Communist, or Fascist …” Is Truman right? Are they all essentially the same thing? Does Arendt correctly identify the common traits? Or are there salient differences that deserve attention, even at a conceptual level?

Totalitarianism #2: Substantive and methodological challenges

2007-03-19T22:36:00.000-07:00

How does totalitarianism come into being? Arendt writes that this book “does not really deal with the ‘origins’ of totalitarianism – as its title unfortunately claims – but gives a historical account of the elements which crystallized into totalitarianism, this account is followed by an analysis of the elemental structure of totalitarian movements and domination itself.” Arendt also writes that her “chief quarrel with the present state of historical and political sciences is their growing incapacity for making distinctions. Terms like nationalism, imperialism, totalitarianism, etc. are used indiscriminately for all kinds of political phenomena … and none of them is any longer understood with its particular historical background. The result is a generalization in which the words themselves lose all meaning. … This kind of confusion – where everything distinct disappears and everything that is new and shocking is (not explained but) explained away either through drawing some analogies or reducing it to a previously known chain of causes and influences – seems to me the hallmark of the modern historical and political sciences.”

Is an arrow diagram an appropriate way to interpret Arendt? How would Arendt react if she knew that had been our approach to previous topics? What do you make of Arendt’s challenge? What would you say in response to defend the methods we’ve been employing? Are both approaches valid? Is one ‘better’ than the other? Thinking substantively about how totalitarianism came to be, how do the two approaches challenge (or complement) one another?

Totalitarianism #1: Is totalitarianism unique?

2007-03-19T22:35:00.000-07:00

What makes totalitarianism unique? Is it really a ‘new’ or ‘unique’ concept? Does the concept help us at all? Look back at the introductory quote from Stanley, and think about the historical cases of what we consider ‘totalitarianism’. Is there something that distinguishes these cases from other concepts? Or would we be better off just folding them under a different label?

Imperialism #5: American Imperialism?

2007-03-12T22:15:00.001-07:00

There has been a lot of writing in the past five years on “American imperialism” – if it exists, what it is, and how it differs from the imperialisms that have come before. Consider some of these excerpts, including one from our very own Stanley Hoffman, and then (in light of the lessons from the Abernethy reading) ask: Is there such thing as American imperialism? If so, what is it? If so, how did it come about? If not, why not? What is the future of American imperialism? Why does the notion of “American imperialism” draw such sharp reaction?

Imperialism #4: Take a stand

2007-03-12T22:14:00.002-07:00

This week’s normative implications are too important not to discuss. As Abernethy points out, “persuasive arguments are advanced by both sides” of the colonialism debate (403). But I want you to take a stand. Put yourself in one of these camps and tell me why:

a) Colonialism was not inevitable and I wish it hadn’t happened.

b) Colonialism was not inevitable, but I’m glad it happened.

c) Colonialism was inevitable, but it could have gone down better than it did.

d) Colonialism was inevitable, and it progressed about as well as we could expect it to.

e) Other …

Imperialism #3: Geography

2007-03-12T22:14:00.001-07:00

Foreshadowing a discussion we will have in our week on globalization and development, the former Harvard, now Columbia professor (and friend of Bono) Jeffrey Sachs has emphasized that social scientists typically fail to account for geography in their explanatory models. Abernethy often talks about geography. What role does geography play in Abernethy’s account? What is “relative magnitude” of geography in this account? In other words, assuming geography matters – how much does geography matter relative to the other factors Abernethy points to?

Imperialism #2: Spin the wheel, pick a factor …

2007-03-12T22:13:00.000-07:00

Abernethy’s comprehensiveness is impressive. From economics and political institutions to individual leadership and worldviews, he’s giving you more than enough to work with. But are all the factors equal? Or, to borrow a line from Animal Farm, are some factors “more equal” than others? Pick a factor and evaluate Abernethy’s treatment of it: did he get it right in your view? Why or why not?

Imperialism #1: Methodology

2007-03-12T22:11:00.000-07:00

Abernethy is quite clear in what he’s trying to explain, and what he’s not. Recalling our discussions earlier this semester about the comparative method and counter-factual reasoning, evaluate his approach from a research design standpoint. Is it persuasive? Why? If not, why not? Focus here (the same way you should in your papers) on the connection between his theories and his methods for testing his theories.

Reading Guide for Imperialism (Week #6)

2007-03-12T22:09:00.000-07:00

The reading guide for the week is now available at:

http://www.fxshen.com/gov97/Gov97_Week6_ReadingGuide_Imperialism.pdf

Reading Guide for Nationalism (Week #5)

2007-03-05T17:38:00.000-08:00

The reading guide for the week is now available at:

http://www.fxshen.com/gov97/Gov97_Week5_ReadingGuide_Nationalism.pdf

Nationalism #7: Typology of Nationalisms

2007-03-05T17:37:00.002-08:00

What are the distinctions between the different types of nationalism? See pages: 43-47, Chapter 7 (especially pp. 94-97 with Figure 2), and identification of factors: (1) power, (2) education, (3) shared culture.

Nationalism #6: Gellner & Marx

2007-03-05T17:37:00.001-08:00

How does Gellner distinguish himself from Marx? See pages: 12, 29, 75, 93-94, 96, 114-115, 137-143

Nationalism #5: Culture

2007-03-05T17:36:00.000-08:00

Gellner refers frequently to “high culture”. What is this? How does it differ from other uses of the word “culture”? See pages: 8-13, 35-38, 50-52, 85, 89, 92-93, 111, 137-143

Nationalism #4: What does the actual transition into nationalism look like?

2007-03-05T17:35:00.000-08:00

See pages: 40, 67, 69 (the two ways out: assimilation or a new state); 99-101, 106-109, 121-122. We will consider here questions similar to your paper topic – the relationship between nationalism and genocide, violence, etc. If you are familiar with recent genocides (e.g. in the Balkans, Rwanda, and many others) you can bring your knowledge to bear.

Nationalism #3: Agrarian Man vs. Industrial Man

2007-03-05T17:34:00.000-08:00

Central to Gellner’s theory is the development of modern industry, replacing the agrarian society. What does Gellner identify as the major differences between the agrarian and industrial societies? See pages 18, 63-64, 73-75, 86, 110

Nationalism #2: Explaining the Rise of Nationalism

2007-03-05T17:33:00.000-08:00

Where does nationalism come from? What kind of arrow diagram would you draw? What about our running discussions of inevitability and chance? Our discussions of the role of individuals? Ideology? See pages: 1-7, 22-23, 27, 33-35 (after “To sum up …”), 47-48, 60-62, 73-75, 112, 123-127. Also, on the question of inevitability, see: 32, 39, 49, 125-127, 129

Nationalism #1: Defining Nationalism

2007-03-05T17:32:00.000-08:00

One of the things you notice as you read Gellner is that he frequently points out what nationalism is, and almost as frequently uses slightly different descriptions. Consider the many different descriptions he offers as you consider the question: what is “nationalism” for Gellner? Look at pages: 1-7, 18, 43, 53, 57, 73, 87, 95, 125.

Capitalism #1: Defining Capitalism

2007-02-25T22:50:00.001-08:00

This is a week on capitalism, so we better know what we’re talking about. What is this thing called “capitalism”? Is it a system of economic arrangements? Political arrangements? Social arrangements? Some or all of the above? Where does capitalism come from? How does it go away? Or does it never go away? Do North/Thomas and Marx/Engels agree on what capitalism is? How does socialism contrast with capitalism?

Capitalism #2: Property

2007-02-25T22:49:00.002-08:00

If I had to pick one word to talk about in this week’s readings, it would be property. How is “property” defined in the North/Thomas and the Marx/Engels frameworks? What is important about property in the two different frameworks? How does property relate to social relations, the market, politics, institutions, and the state? (Note: This last question could serve as the basis for a twenty-volume dissertation. Pick out what you think are some of the most important aspects of property and its relationship to capitalism).

Capitalism #3: Comparing North and Marx

2007-02-25T22:49:00.001-08:00

Consider the goals and the methods of both North and Marx. Are they asking the same question, and just answering it in a different way? If so, what’s the question and what are their different answers? Are they asking different questions, or do they have different goals? Is there overlap between the two approaches, or do we have to ultimately choose one or the other? What do you think North thinks of Marx? (Don’t just quote the Epilogue!) What would Marx, if he could see North’s work, think of Marx?

Capitalism #4: Revisiting Marx

2007-02-25T22:48:00.000-08:00

Setting aside what you’ve heard about Marx, or what you think about Marx, revisit the Manifesto and try to figure out what it’s actually saying. What is the “big idea” here? What makes this theory so powerful that it could have such a profound influence on the 20th century? What is Marx actually arguing? What is he not arguing?

Capitalism #5: Revisiting North

2007-02-25T22:47:00.001-08:00

[See excerpt of North's reflection in the reading guide.] How does the reflection by North change your reading of the North/Thomas argument, if at all? What implications does “decision making under uncertainty” have for the development of institutions? What should we be paying attention to when we examine the development of institutions over human history? What would Marx say about North’s discussion of “mental models”?

Reading Guide for Capitalism (Week #4)

2007-02-25T22:44:00.000-08:00

The reading guide for the week is now available at:

http://www.fxshen.com/gov97/Gov97_Week4_ReadingGuide_Capitalism.pdf

Paper #1: Additional Sources

2007-02-24T08:35:00.000-08:00

POSSIBLE SECONDARY SOURCES (and you can find others too if they suit your purpose):
* Note: These are sources that came up in our weekly TF lunch. You may find additional works that you find relevant. Some of these pieces are listed for additional historical context. Others are arguments that may interest you. If you are going to work with one (or more) of the authors' arguments, it's important that you determine exactly how you're going to position your paper relative to these works. Did one of these authors miss something that you can point out? Did an author make a point that isn't clear, and you can make it more clear? Do you agree with part of what an author said, but not all, and now you want to refine the argument? Whatever your take, you want to make sure you're using Thucydides and Tocqueville, and whatever extra historical cases you need, to back up your arguments. All of the articles are available through Harvard e-library. The books you can track down in the Harvard library system.

* TOCQUEVILLE: Old Regime and the Revolution, **Volume 2** <-- where Toc continues his thoughts

* THEDA SKOCPOL: States and social revolutions : a comparative analysis of France, Russia, and China / Theda Skocpol. Published : Cambridge ; New York : Cambridge University Press, 1979.
[related articles]
Theda Skocpol. "France, Russia, China: A Structural Analysis of Social Revolutions'" Comparative Studies in Society and History > Vol. 18, No. 2 (Apr., 1976), pp. 175-210.
Theda Skocpol. "Old Regime Legacies and Communist Revolutions in Russia and China," Social Forces > Vol. 55, No. 2 (Dec., 1976), pp. 284-315
Theda Skocpol. "State and Revolution: Old Regimes and Revolutionary Crises in France, Russia, and China," Theory and Society > Vol. 7, No. 1/2, Special Double Issue on State and Revolution (Jan., 1979), pp. 7-95

* STEPHEN M. WALT: Revolution and war / Stephen M. Walt. Published : Ithaca : Cornell University Press, 1996.
[related articles]
Stephen M. Walt. "Revolution and War," World Politics > Vol. 44, No. 3 (Apr., 1992), pp. 321-368.

* DAVID EDGERTON: Warfare state : Britain, 1920-1970 / by David Edgerton. Published : Cambridge, UK ; New York : Cambridge University Press, 2006.

* BARRINGTON MOORE: Social origins of dictatorship and democracy; lord and peasant in the making of the modern world, by Barrington Moore, Jr. Published : Boston, Beacon Press [1966]

Feedback & Food Requests

2007-02-17T03:16:00.000-08:00

Please feel free to post any anonymous comments about the section -- what you'd like to see, what's helpful, what' s not, etc. Also feel free to post food/drink requests. No reasonable offer refused!

Reading Guide for Tocqueville (Week #3)

2007-02-17T03:06:00.001-08:00

The reading guide for the week is now available at:

http://www.fxshen.com/gov97/Gov97_Week3_ReadingGuide_Tocqueville.pdf

Updated Course Policies -- 2/14/07

2007-02-17T03:03:00.000-08:00

You can find the revised course policies online here:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~fxshen/gov97/Gov97_ShenSections_CoursePolicies.pdf

Tocqueville 7: Methods

2007-02-17T03:02:00.001-08:00

Keeping in mind Tocqueville’s stated approach, how is Tocqueville trying to persuade readers about the motivations and causes of human action? Is he consistent in his approach? How or how not? Does he use a single method applied in different ways, or different approaches at different points? How does his approach resemble, or vary, from that of Thucydides? In the opening paragraph, Tocquville also tells us that this is not a history, but a study of the French Revolution. What is the difference? Which do you find more effective? Why?

Tocqueville 6: Luck

2007-02-17T03:01:00.002-08:00

Frequently Thucydides would refer to fate or luck. How does Tocqueville treat the possibility of fate/chance/providence? How is this similar or different from Thucydides treatment?

Tocqueville 5: Religion

2007-02-17T03:01:00.001-08:00

What role does the institutional Church play in France? What is the relationship between religion, civil society, and state? How, if at all, does this relationship change leading up to the Revolution? How important a factor is anti-religious sentiment in bringing on the Revolution?

Tocqueville 4: Change and Constancy

2007-02-17T02:59:00.002-08:00

One of Tocqueville’s primary arguments is that much of what the Revolution supposedly ushered in was in fact already in place in the Old Regime. At different points in the text, Tocqueville is arguing that although there may new outward forms, the substance (e.g. degree of centralization) of the state remains the same. Does Tocqueville persuade you? Does the Revolution usher in a completely new state? Or is it merely a continuation of what came before? What pieces of evidence lead to your conclusion?

Tocqueville 3: Contradictions

2007-02-17T02:59:00.001-08:00

Who does Tocqueville identify as being contradictory? When is Tocqueville himself being contradictory? How can you resolve these contradictions?

Tocqueville 2: Revolution

2007-02-17T02:58:00.000-08:00

What constitutes a revolution for Tocqueville? What makes a “revolution” different from just a regular change? Do you agree with Tocqueville’s analysis? Is there a “revolution” here? If so, what kind? If not, what is it?

Tocqueville 1: The Comparative Perspective

2007-02-17T02:57:00.000-08:00

When does Tocqueville decide to use a comparative perspective? Why? What does the comparative perspective allow Tocqueville to do that he otherwise could not? Are the comparisons effective? Why or why not?

Thucydides 9: War: What is it good for?

2007-02-12T02:17:00.000-08:00

At the end of day, or more appropriately, at the end of the war, what is all the fighting good for? What is Thucydides position? What is the “realist” position? Are these positions correct? Why or why not? Who bears the costs of war? What costs are those? Who benefits from the war? What benefits are there?

Thucydides 8: Diplomacy

2007-02-12T02:16:00.000-08:00

How successful are efforts at diplomacy in The Peloponnesian War? What general lessons can you draw about diplomacy? When, if ever, may diplomacy be a good option? What sorts of diplomacy should be employed? What is the relationship between diplomacy and power? Do Athens and Sparta use different diplomatic methods?

Thucydides 7: Unilateral Action

2007-02-12T02:15:00.002-08:00

Mearsheimer and Waltz disagree on how aggressive states are, and consequently on how much power states should speak. Returning to Athens, Sparta, and the Greek city-states, are either Athens or Sparta seeking to be a “great power”? What is the best evidence that they are? What is the best evidence that they are not? How “aggressive” are they? If you were an Athenian or Spartan leader, and you were put in charge of security, how much power would you seek? Would you push for domination of Greece? For more? Why or why not?

Thucydides 6: Moral Philosophy

2007-02-12T02:15:00.001-08:00

How do justice, necessity, honor, duty, pride, envy, and other human desires play out in relationship to war? Can justice be a ruling paradigm? Must necessity always take precedence?

Thucydides 5: Pacifism

2007-02-12T02:14:00.002-08:00

How would Athens or Sparta react to someone who echoed the anti-war and non-violent approach of Dr. Martin Luther King? How would a pacifist message have played in Athens or Sparta? Why? How does this compare to the pacifist efforts in modern states?

Thucydides 4: Domestic Politics in Wartime

2007-02-12T02:14:00.001-08:00

What should we expect to happen during a war? How do domestic politics change? What about social dynamics and social interactions within city-states or nations? Will these changes become permanent after the war ends? Are the changes particular to Athens and Sparta? Or are these generalizable to all nations that engage in warfare? Are the changes inevitable? If not, what are their causes?

Thucydides 3: Realism

2007-02-12T02:12:00.002-08:00

How well does the realist theory, in any of its forms, help us to understand the conflict between Athens and Sparta? What questions does it leave unanswered?

Thucydides 2: Historical Approach

2007-02-12T02:12:00.001-08:00

What is the best argument you can make in support of Thucydides historical approach? What is best argument you can make that Thucydides approach is inadequate? When, if ever, is Thucydides’ approach useful today?

Thucydides 1: Cause and Effect

2007-02-12T01:59:00.000-08:00

In Thucydides, consider the factors that led to each of these three outcomes: (1) the outbreak of war; (2) the duration or nature of the war; and (3) the end of the war (or lack of an end). What factors does Thucydides identify as being most important? What factors are less relevant? What factors are not considered at all? How applicable is this analysis outside the context of ancient Greece?

Reading Guide for Thucydides (Week #2)

2007-02-12T01:56:00.000-08:00

All of the questions, and much more, are included in the reading guide for the week:

http://www.fxshen.com/gov97/Gov97_Week2_ReadingGuide_Thucydides.pdf

Office Hours in Lowell Dining Hall

2007-02-06T20:59:00.000-08:00

Rather than trek over to CGIS, I'm going to hold my office hours in the Lowell Dining Hall, on Wednesdays after the 1-3 pm section. I will be in the Dining Hall from roughly 3:15-5:15 pm. There's no need to make an appointment, but if you want to email me specific questions in advance or let me know you're stopping by, I can probably prepare a better response.

Also, I am available to meet with you at another time or over a meal at Lowell. Let me know, and we can work out a day/time.

Office Hours are an opportunity for you to follow up on course materials, ask questions, or just talk about anything else that interests you. I served the last three years as a Concentration Advisor in the Gov Dept., so we can talk about general department matters. I am also happy to talk about law school, grad school in general, summer opportunities, or just about anything else.

Assignment for Week of Monday, Feb. 5th

2007-02-03T14:55:00.000-08:00

Our first section meeting will cover a number of introductory topics, as well as give us a start on The Pelopennisian War. Prior to section, please do the following:

1. Look at the dates of all our section meetings, and check your calendars for potential conflicts. In particular, note if section conflicts with any:
- Religious Holidays that you celebrate
- Scheduled absences from Cambridge
- Anything else that might conflict

2. Become familiar with our blog by reading allthe posts so far:
http://gov97.blogspot.com/

3. Read the following from The Peloponnesian War for our first section:

Book I (pages 1-57)
The essay at the end by Michael Doyle: "Thucydides: A realist?" (pages 489-500)
[Note that if you want to read more you can cut into's next week's assignment, which is to read the remainder of the text, books 2-8]

4. Be prepared for to handle this scenario in section:

Scientists have just made a major breakthrough, and have discovered a way to travel through time. (Don't think it's possible: consider this). I, being both a science fiction junkie and a believer in our abilities as a group, have managed to get our section a trip on the first voyage. There's one catch: I have promised these scientists that if we are sent back to 431 B.C, just before the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War, we will be able to find a diplomatic solution and avert war.
Here's your task: Based only on what you read for this week, think of one strategy you'd use for the Athenians and one strategy you'd use for the Spartans, in order to find common ground. Think about your strategies and, again based on what you know from the text, decide if you believe in them (or if, instead, you think I've just signed us up for an impossible task).

Book List

2007-02-03T14:08:00.000-08:00

Here are the texts we'll be using this semester. I have linked most entries to the amazon.com catalog. In many cases, there are used books available.

A note: The Marx/Engels text may be made available electronically. I should know this by Friday, Feb. 9th. I will also check on the amazaon availability of the remaining texts not already linked.

Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War: A New Translation, Backgrounds, Interpretations, edited by Walter Blanco and Jennifer Tolbert Robters (New York: Norton, [400 BC] 1998).
Alexis de Tocqueville, The Old Regime and the French Revolution, Volume I, edited and with an Introduction and Critical Apparatus by François Furet and Françoise Melonio and translated by Alan S. Kahan (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004).
Douglass C. North and Robert Paul Thomas, The Rise of the Western World: A New Economic History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973).
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto, New Edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998).
Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983).
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, “On Imperialism in India,” in Robert C. Tucker, ed., The Marx-Engels Reader, Second Edition (New York: Norton, 1978), pp. 653-664.
David Abernethy, The Dynamics of Global Dominance: European Overseas Empires (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002)
Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (New York: Harcourt, 1973), read selectively.
Adam Przeworski, Michael E. Alvarez, José Antonio Cheibub, and Fernando Limongi, Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well-Being in the World, 1950-1990 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).
Jeffrey Herbst, States and Power in Africa: Comparative Lessons in Authority and Control (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000).
Immanuel Kant, “Perpetual Peace A Philosophical Sketch,” in Hans Reiss, ed., Kant’s Political Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, [1795] 1970), pp. 93-130.
Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom (New York: Anchor, 2000).
Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, New Edition (New York: Free Press, 2002).
Stanley Hoffmann, “Clash of Globalizations,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 81, No. 4 (July/August 2002), pp. 104-115. [Note: Requires Harvard ID/Pin login]

Section Meeting Times & Location

2007-02-01T21:35:00.000-08:00

Thanks to all of you for getting back to me so promptly with your scheduling availability. I think we have found two section times that will work for almost everyone. Here they are:

Section 1: Wed, 1-3 pm
- meeting in Lowell House, Coolidge Room
Yang Li
Gillian Morris
Jan Straka

Section 2: Thurs, 4-6 pm
- meeting in Lowell House, Coolidge Room
Rachel Banks
Jimmy Garmendia
Nathaniel Lubin
Sebastian Marambio
Katie McCabe
Max Mishkin
Rahul Prabhakar
Edward Robinson

Favorite TF & Section Observations

2007-01-30T22:40:00.000-08:00

A common topic for writers in The Crimson is the quality (or lack thereof) of their Harvard sections and TFs. Here are a few of my favorite recent ones, with some choice excerpts:

***

"Once upon a time I actually attended all of my sections. I arrived on time, took copious notes and attempted to participate in the “discussions” led by the all-knowing TF. As a second-semester senior, however, I’ve long since given up on the illusion that section is worth the effort. I now realize that fifteen disinterested students and a grad-student-cum-teacher will not lead to enlightenment and that an exchange of trite ideas will never make the Core curriculum more bearable. Nay, I know that section is usually deadening. After observing over 30 sections in the past seven semesters, I’ve learned that the classes may be different, but the players are typically the same."

- From "The People in My Section: The classes may be different, but the personalities are the same," by William L. Adams, October 27, 2004

***

"Bad teaching fellows (TFs) can make section about as educationally edifying as a trip to the dentist’s office. Aside from a set of remarkable grad students who know the material and possess the skills to teach it, in section—often the pedagogical equivalent of pulling teeth—leaders range from the clueless to the unhinged."

- From "Making Sections Work: Requiring more professor oversight is the way to make TFs better teachers," Crimson Staff Editorial, November 9, 2004

***

"But instead of resuscitating veritas, too many of our sections seem to drain even more life from it. I do not mean to attack the sizeable portion of section leaders who already do a wonderful job (nor the all-star professors and lecturers who lead many sophomore and junior tutorials with finesse). But how many of us have routinely had sections where TFs walk into class without a lesson plan or even a basic strategy for guiding conversations? How many have had TFs who do not know how to facilitate a discussion, to focus its inquiry, to corral its digressions? How often as a result have we had to suffer through sections dominated by classmates in love with their own voice and grubbing for grades? Too often we leave more confused and more turned off to the material than when we arrived. Too often there is too much talking, too little listening, and virtually no constructive dialogue going."

- From "Reviving Veritas: Why teaching at Harvard needs a defibrillator," by Henry Seton, November 10, 2005

***

"This week I was going to write about the ins and outs of sectional politics and its stock standard movers and shakers. You know, all those various distinct personalities that make up a typical Harvard discussion section, in all its awkward-silence-filled, unread and uninformed glory. Such a line of conversation amongst friends usually plays out in a fairly predictable way. Everyone in the group groans loudly in disgust at predictable tropes like The Freshman, who has highlighted the entire sourcebook (with annotations!); The Jaded Thesis-Writing Senior, usually hailing from Social Studies or Hist and Lit, who stumbles in at 17 minutes past the hour (if at all) draped in flannel pajamas with artfully styled bed-head hair; and of course The Pass/Fail Dilettante, who uses his thick-as-a-doorstop textbook as a primitive form of camouflage, working under the assumption that if he can’t see the TF, the TF probably can’t see him."

- From "Pleased To Meet You: Section offers opportunities for star-spotting," by Amelia E. Lester, March 16, 2004

***

"The most tangible problem with sections is the people who teach them. TFs, with rare exception, tend to fall into one of two categories. Either they are disinterested and aloof, primarily using their section time as a chance to hit on undergraduate girls, or they are lacking confidence—confused and naïve to the point where they seem to know little more about the subject than the section all-stars (you know who I mean). "

"This brings me to the more insidious problem with the section system. Since the TFs fail to inspire any sort of genuine interest in the material, and generally the section grade is based on the always-vague notion of “participation,” sections become a rat race of asinine comments (“It’s really symbolic how they had the main character’s name starts with an S”), ridiculous pre-planned name dropping (“This case reminds me of the famous 1896 14th District Court case Brownnose vs. Raisemygrade…have you read it?”), and ludicrously simple questions designed to make one seem actively engaged (“I don’t understand what a table is—could you draw it on the board for me?”). Those who find themselves unable to tolerate the ridiculousness of their sections spend most of their time doodling in their notebooks, playing Minesweeper on their laptops, or simply daydreaming about how sleeping would be a more productive use of their time. "

- From "The Blind Leading the Blind: Why letting TFs control such a large part of our Harvard education is a disservice," by Andrew Kreicher, October 13, 2005
***

"Ah, section. We’ve all been there: trapped in some room in the upper reaches of Sever or William James, skimming our pristine, untouched sourcepacks while the TF makes his or her opening remarks (“So, who wants to start us off on Coleridge?...Anyone?”). I like to make a very broad summary statement early on that suggests I’ve done the reading, while not requiring me to advance an original argument. After the teaching fellow places a check mark next to my name, I’m in the clear to doodle, daydream, or stare out the window. I’ve observed a similar pattern in most of my classmates, resulting in a dramatic drop in the level of conversation at the end of the hour."

- From "Take Back the Section:How you can do yourself (and your TF) a favor ," by Sara Culver, April 8, 2005

***

"Bad TF work can scare even the most prepared student into silence. I cannot count the number of times I have been asked questions at the outset of section that are either too open-ended to offer a decent response (“What makes this art?”), or worded in such a way that only the TF can possibly answer (“What kind of response might this work have elicited in seventeenth century Amsterdam?”), or so specific and poorly worded that nobody pays attention (“If Iqbal can be understood here to be attempting to confront a history of Muslim warfare and conquest, why is he couching his frustrations in images of nature and, specifically, trees?”)."

- From "Awkward Silences: What’s really wrong with sections, and what the College can do to fix them," by Rebecca D. O'Brien, December 16, 2005

***

"The question hangs in the air like the stench of vomit in the New Quincy elevator. My fellow section mates and I glance downward, furiously writing notes. We don’t want to get put on the spot. The seconds tick by. The TF waits.

But then a throat clears. Someone has chimed in!

“Thank goodness,” we say to ourselves. But suddenly our hearts go still. This is not the freshman girl who does all the reading. This is the self-proclaimed “bullshitter.”

God help us all."

- From "You’re Not Fooling Me. You’re Just Pissing Me Off!" by Stephen M. Fee, March 10, 2005

***

"This discussion has been absolutely brutal. There are 12 people in the section, and if there was an over/under for how many people actually did the assigned reading, Vegas would probably set it at three. The TF keeps asking us questions, in response to which we put on our “concerned intellectual” faces and act as if we stayed up all night pondering the deeper meaning of the reading, when in reality I know that at least four of us are still waiting for our books to arrive from Amazon.com."

"I feel bad for our TF. Our discussion is going nowhere, and I’ve seen her check the clock three times in the last 15 minutes. I’ve found that there are three types of TFs. First, you have the ones who get stuck teaching a subject that they know very little about. So you’re a graduate student in archaeology? Well then I guess it makes sense that you’re teaching a class on astronomy, since both subjects deal with rocks on occasion. Next, you have the TF who is actually overqualified for the class. These are the ones that come into section and explain to you that, unfortunately, everything your professor lectured about was wrong. So whom should you believe: the professor or the TF? Who knows—just make sure you guess right when it’s time for your midterm. Finally, there are the TFs who you have no idea if they are good or bad, because you spend the entire class just trying to figure out what the language they’re using is."

- From: "A Blog Too Far: Let me expose the awkwardness of a Harvard section," by Eric A. Kester, November 20, 2006

***

"Harvard students have a common understanding the ideal TFs. They’re well-versed on course material—this is particularly important as students’ lecture attendance decreases once semester doldrums sink in. We always trust that a stellar TF will fill in the gaps. A TF must also be a fair grader—of course, by “fair,” I mean “easy.” After the grade deflation push, this is the common conception of “fair.” Finally, TFs must administer section in such a manner that makes it somewhat interesting and bearable."

- From "The Section Shakedown: Slow sections are not the result of TFs, but the silent students themselves," by Elise M. Stefanik, March 11, 2004

Course Policies

2007-01-30T22:23:00.000-08:00

Please see this document for the course policies, including essay assignments and grading policies:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/%7Efxshen/gov97/gov97_ShenSections_CoursePolicies.pdf

Also see this guide prepared by the Government Department to aid you in your writing:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/%7Efxshen/gov97/gov97_EssayAdvice.pdf

Syllabus (as of 1-31-07)

2007-01-30T21:40:00.000-08:00

Click on this link to see the course syllabus, as of 1/31/07:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~fxshen/gov97/gov97_Syllabus_1-31-07.pdf

Sectioning

2007-01-30T21:37:00.000-08:00

The deadline for sending me your section preferences is Thursday, 2/1, at 8:00 pm. You can go online and list your availability at:

http://poll.icommons.harvard.edu/poll/taker/pollTaker.jsp?poll=1-5530-94181

As of Wednesday morning, we have two front-runners for our two section times:

Section 1:
* Wednesdays, 1:00 pm to 3:00 pm
* (or possibly Wed. 1:30 pm to 3:30 pm)

Section 2:
* Wednesdays, 4:00 pm to 6:00 pm
* (or possibly Thursday, 4:30 pm to 6:30 pm)

[ I will update this entry as I receive all responses. ]

First Lecture: Tuesday 2/6, 2-3:30 pm, Tsai Auditorium, CGIS-South

2007-01-30T21:30:00.000-08:00

Please note that the first (of six) mandatory lectures will be on Tuesday, February 6th from 2:00 - 3:30 pm. The location is: Tsai Auditorium, CGIS-South.

In speaking with students from previous years of this course, I know that one of the major complaints was that the lectures didn't seem to be integrated well into the course.

In my sections, I will be making a special point to try and integrate material from the lectures into our discussions of the works. I advise you to attend the lectures (and even stay awake during them!) in order to know what's going on in class when I ask you a question about the arguments made in the lecture.

Who's Who in gov97b

2007-01-30T12:46:00.000-08:00

The person you'll see most in Gov97 is your section head (that's me). The head tutor is Jacob Kline (email), and the two Professors who lead the course (and will each give three lectures) are: Professor Stanley Hoffman and Professor Jens Meierhenrich.

The last Gov 97b ever?

2007-01-10T01:22:00.000-08:00

If you didn't see it last year, the Government Department has decided to completely revamp the sophomore tutorial. In the Crimson, there was speculation that the spring semester (97b) might be on the chopping block. If that's the case, and if changes go into effect next school year, then this is the last time ever that Gov97 will be offered.

Introduction

2007-01-10T00:46:00.000-08:00

This blog was introduced to complement my sections of Gov 97b in the Spring semester of 2007. Gov 97 is the Harvard Government Department's year long sophomore tutorial, mandatory for all Harvard Government concentrators. In the Spring semester we cover a number of canonical works. While these works are important and insightful, they are also at times dense and difficult to read. It is my hope that this blog will add a little bit of clarity and humor to the course.

I hope that others will contribute to the blog as well. To use Jonathan Zittrain's word, the generativity of the Internet is to be found in collaborative creation. Let's see if we can't teach this old gov97 dog a few new tricks.

A few disclaimers before we get going ...

The blog is not intended to replace the primary course website:
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/4403

The course website will contain the official announcements. This blog is more likely to tell you whether the snack food will be donuts or cookies.

Nor is the blog intended to serve as a substitute for reading the materials carefully. If the information has been posted to the blog, it's a safe bet I've read through it. Claiming someone else's idea as your own, whether in a class discussion or in a paper, is not only lazy - it can get you a nice date with the Ad Board for a potential disciplinary violation. Trust me, no matter how bad your social life, this is one date you don't want to have.

With that out of the way, let's get to the good stuff. (Yes, the readings of gov97 are "good stuff".)