POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY Sociology 8311 - Fall 2015

Wednesday 11:45-2:15 1114 Social SciencesRon Aminzade 1031 Social Sciences Phone: 612-624-6509 Office Hours: Tuesday, Thursday 1:00-2:00 p.m. or by appointment

Subject Matter: This introduction to political sociology focuses on the social bases of power and various dimensions of the exercise of power in the modern world. It explores debates concerning the nature of state power in contemporary societies and takes a comparative/historical perspective on key long-term processes of political change. The goal is to develop an understanding of these debates and a capacity to link them to concrete problems of social research and political practice. The focus is on historically informed approaches to the politics of state formation, nation building, colonialism, imperialism, democratization, globalization, citizenship, and contentious politics. The first two weeks of the course address debates over the concept of power, examining socio-economic and cultural dimensions of power and the relationship between power, interests, and knowledge. The following three weeks examine different theories of the state and various aspects of state power, including the relationship between nation-states, globalization, multinational corporations, and digital technologies. We then spend two weeks examining the politics of nation-building and citizenship and the operation of processes of inclusion and exclusion in national political communities. The subsequent five weeks survey debates over participatory and representative democracy, the relationship between democracy and development, the political sociology of colonialism and imperialism, and the dynamics of contentious politics. The final three weeks examine politics and public policies concerning class, gender, and racial inequalities. The topics and readings listed below reflect my own interests and expertise, but you should feel free to pursue other areas of interest. The written assignments give you an opportunity review key theoretical debates in your own areas of interest and to think about how the concepts and theories discussed in our seminar relate to research and political practice in these areas.

Course Organization and Requirements: In addition to responsibility for the required readings, students will assume a major responsibility for seminar discussions. We will begin our discussion each week by focusing on issues in the required readings identified in the discussion questions that students have circulated via e-mail. I will then review other important issues raised in the relevant literature on the topic that have not been covered in these questions and the required readings. There are four written assignments for the course: l) every week students must circulate one discussion question (1-2 pages) based on the required readings to all seminar participants via e-mail (see page 3). Discussion questions must be sent by Tuesday at 12:00 noon. 2) an 8-10 page book review essay, due October 14st (see page 5). 3) an 8-10 page essay on democracy and citizenship, due November 18th, addressing one of the questions on page 6 and incorporating material from both the required and recommended readings 4) a 3-4 page policy brief, due on December 9th, on an issue of your choice. The policy brief should

1

explain relevant technical details in simple terms and be accessible to a general audience. It should analyze a contemporary political issue and assess public policies designed to address it. For good examples, see the numerous policy briefs posted on the Scholars Strategy Network website (http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/policy-briefs). Written work should be typewritten and double-spaced with reasonable margins.

Readings:All of the required thirty-nine (39) readings for the course are available on e-reserve at Wilson Library (https://reserves.lib.umn.edu/). Most of the recommended readings are available at Wilson library. I strongly recommend that you get books from the library several weeks beforehand so that you can recall those that are checked out. In addition, I have copies of many of the recommended readings in my files and on my bookshelves in case you have trouble finding them in the library. I am willing to lend them provided that you return them to me in a timely manner. Please remember to bring copies of the week’s required readings with you to class since you will need them for our discussions .

Grading: Although you will not receive a participation grade in this course, you are expected to come to class prepared to discuss the readings and to send weekly discussion questions. Please be sure to read this syllabus carefully since it is your responsibility to understand the course requirements and be aware of due dates for assignments. Your final grade will be based on the two essays, each of which is worth 40% of your final grade and the policy brief, which is worth 20% of your final grade. Late papers will be graded down one-third of a grade for every day late, i.e. an A will become an A- and a B+ will become a B if the paper is one day late. In order to get a grade of B+ or higher in this course, you must attend all of the seminars or provide a legitimate excuse for your absence (e.g. a health problem or family emergency) and submit discussion questions every week. If you are going to miss a class, please let me know in advance. In the case of a borderline grade (e.g. between a B+ and A-), your final grade will be determined by my judgment of the quantity and quality of classroom participation and the quality of your weekly discussion questions. No incompletes will be given for this course.

The grades for your three papers will be based on the following criteria: Substance: Does the paper address the questions, show an awareness of the central ideas and

debates in the required readings, and make connections among the readings and to relevant class discussions and presentations? Are the ideas original?

Evidence: Are statements accurate and are opinions adequately supported by evidence? Are relevant examples provided? Are sources identified and appropriately documented?

Organization: Is the structure of the paper clear, with an introduction, development, and conclusion? Is each paragraph coherent? Are transitions from one idea to the next logical?

Mechanics: Is the sentence structure correct? Are sentences awkward? Are there errors in the use of verbs, pronouns, modifiers, word usage, punctuation, and spelling?

2

Weekly Discussion Questions: Your question about the required readings should be no more than 1-2 pages double spaced. It is due on Tuesday via e-mail by 12:00 noon. Focus your question on the debates, arguments, and evidence presented in the required readings. The question should help to facilitate a coherent and focused seminar discussion. There are a number of different ways in which you can approach this assignment. You may wish to highlight what you found to be the most illuminating, surprising, provocative, problematic, or confusing points in the readings or try to make connections among different readings, and/or connect the readings to your own research. You might wish to pose a question that explores how the authors understand power, knowledge, and inequality, or about the dynamics of political change, their strategies of explanation, and the evidence they use to construct their arguments. Your question should help us to discuss conceptual and methodological claims, identify assumptions, compare arguments, assess evidence, and identify silences in the readings.

Discussion Rules and Goals: All participants in the discussion have a responsibility to do the required readings for the week, to listen to what is being said by other participants (rather than being overly preoccupied with what they are going to say), and not to interrupt people in the middle of sentences. I will try to promote a relaxed atmosphere conducive to non-intimidating discussions. The goal is to create a setting in which everyone feels comfortable talking. I will monitor the discussion, making sure that nobody dominates and that everyone has a chance to talk. I will also intervene to prevent digressions, clarify confusions, and make sure that people follow up on what is being said rather than launch new issues every few minutes. You should come prepared to discuss the required readings as well as the discussion questions that you have received via e-mail on the day before class. Take time to think about the discussion questions suggested by your fellow students before arriving in class.

CLASS SCHEDULEI. Theorizing PowerSeptember 9th Class Introductions; Lecture: The Concept of Power

Exercise: Claims about Power

September 16th Power, Knowledge, and ExpertiseVideo: “Jeremy Heimans: What New Power Looks Like”, Ted Talks, 15m08s

II. Theorizing the StateSeptember 23rd States, Capitalism, and Social Classes

Lecture: Max Weber’s Theory of the State

September 30th The State and Culture

October 7th Globalization, Corporations, Localities, and the State in a Digital Era Video: “Benjamin Barber: Why Mayors Should Rule the World.” Ted Talks, 18m05s

3

III. Nation-Building, Citizenship, and Rights October 14th The Politics of Nation-Building Book Review Essays Due

Exercise: Nationalism as Lived Experience Lecture: Arguing for and Against Nationalism

October 21st Citizenship, Exclusion/Inclusion, and the Politics of Belonging Discussion of Book Review Essays; Exercise: Minority Rights in a Culturally Diverse Society- Case Studies

IV. Democracy, Development, and ColonialismOctober 28th Democracy and Political Participation

Exercise: The Promises and Pitfalls of Participatory Democracy Video: “Pia Mancini: How to Upgrade Democracy for the Internet Era.” Ted Talks, 13m24s; Mid-Semester Course Evaluation

November 4th Development and DemocracyVideo: “Yasheng Huang: Does Democracy Stifle Economic Growth?” Ted Talks, 18m51s.

November 11th The Political Sociology of Colonialism and Imperialism Video: George Steinmetz Interview: Segments 6, 7. YouTube, 9m54s, 6m24.

V. Social Movements and Contentious PoliticsNovember 18th Contentious Politics and Political Change

Video: “Yoruba Richen: What the Gay Rights Movement Learned from the Civil Rights Movement.” Ted Talks, 17m42s; Democracy/Citizenship Essays Due

November 25th The Dynamics of Contentious Politics Discussion of Democracy/Citizenship Essays THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY- November 26th-27th

VI. Public Policy and the Politics of InequalityDecember 2nd The Politics of Economic Inequality

Handout: Guidelines for Policy BriefsVideos: “Inequality for All”, Moyers & Company, 56m46s

December 9th Politics, Gender and Sexuality Policy Brief Due

December 16th Race and Politics Discussion of Policy Briefs Video: “Michael Alexander-Locked Out of America”, Moyers & Company, 35m25s

4

Book Review Essay (8-10 pages)Due October 14th

You may choose any book listed on this syllabus to review. Your 8-10 page typewritten, double-spaced essay should provide a concise summary of the central arguments of the book and the evidence used to support these arguments. It should also assess the book's strengths and weaknesses, both theoretically and methodologically, and provide comments/critiques of specific arguments in the book. You should identify the central concepts informing the analysis, the key assumptions underpinning the author's position, and the political and public policy implications of the author's arguments. What conception of power informs the author’s analysis? What are the potential practical political implications of the knowledge generated by this research? How might such knowledge help to foster effective contentious politics, a more sustainable and inclusive democracy, and/or sustainable development? You should also identify the theoretical traditions and methodological approaches (e.g. survey research, participant observation, interviews, historical research, etc.) that inform the book and provide an assessment of the limitations and benefits of these approaches. How does the theory and methodology affect the questions asked, the types of groups studied, and the types of accounts produced? You may wish to strongly disagree with certain ideas presented by the author, identify what you regard as important silences in the text, or discuss how the book forced you to reevaluate your previous thinking about certain issues.

You must situate the book in the wider political sociology literature, locating it in the context of ongoing debates among political sociologists doing research in this area. What are the major debates and what is at stake in these debates? Which position in the debates do you find the most and the least persuasive? Why? In your effort to situate the book in the literature, consult the recommended readings. Make as strong a case for your own viewpoint as possible. You should identify what you think is the distinctive contribution of the book to the literature and address the book's most controversial claims. You may also wish to situate the book in the historical context in which it was written or in the institutional or biographical location of the author.

If you've never written a book review essay before, you may wish to look at the review essays in Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews, which is available at Wilson Library.

5

Democracy and Citizenship Essay (8-10 pages)Due November 18th

The following questions are suggestions. Please feel free to write an essay on any debate addressed in the course readings or seminar discussions. If you don't choose one of the following questions for your essay, you are required to discuss your question with me before you start writing. Please consult the recommended as well as required readings in answering the question you choose.

Provide a defense, and then a critique, of the following arguments. Make as strong a case for each contesting viewpoint as possible. Which position in the debate do you find the most and the least persuasive? Why?

1) In a complex, advanced industrial society requiring bureaucracy, expertise, and an advanced division of labor, there are no viable alternatives to representative democracy. Political emancipation requires the development, extension, and strengthening of representative forms, rather than the creation of new forms of direct democracy. 2) Political parties are a necessary component of any democratic society, but these institutions inevitably degenerate into vehicles of domination. We should focus our energies on the democratization of civil society, not on the creation of more responsible and more internally democratic political parties.

3) The ideals of impartiality and equal opportunity, by denying or repressing difference, inevitably lead to exclusionary practices and reinforce oppression by generating a propensity to treat the point of view of privileged groups as a universal position. Group-conscious, rather than group-neutral, citizenship policies best serve the goal of promoting social equality and democracy. Such policies would make citizenship more meaningful by extending cultural, not just civic, political, and social rights, to all citizens.

4) All citizens should be required to share some features of a common national culture to avoid ethnic, racial, or religious conflict and political instability. Governments have a responsibility to promote desirable citizenship virtues, such as ensuring that citizens are critical rather than deferential in the face of injustice and express solidarity rather than hostility or indifference toward fellow citizens. This implies the need for governments to suppress minority group practices which foster passivity and deferential behavior, promote undemocratic attitudes and practices, and create passive, inward-looking, and resentful forms of group identity that inhibit cooperation and dialogue among all citizens.

5) Global justice can only be obtained if national borders are eliminated along with national citizenship and replaced by open borders and global and local rather than national governing institutions. The world needs to move beyond national citizenship to post-national forms of membership and community based on human rights.

6

September 9th Conceptualizing PowerRequired: Steven Lukes. 2005. “Power: A Radical View.” Power: A Radical View. Second Edition. Palgrave, 14-38.

Göran Therborn. 2005. “What Does the Ruling Class Do When It Rules? Some Reflections on Different Approaches to the Study of Power in Society.” In Rhonda Levine, ed. Enriching the Sociological Imagination. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers, 41-61.

David L. Swartz. 2013. “Forms of Power in Bourdieu’s Sociology.” Symbolic Power, Politics, and Intellectuals: The Political Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago: U. of Chicago Press, 31-46.

Recommended:Isaac Reed. 2013. “Power: Relational, Discursive, and Performative Dimensions.” Sociological Theory. 31 (3): 193-218.

Ann Shola Orloff. 2012. “Remaking Power and Politics.” Social Science History 36 (1): 1-21.

Mark Haugaard and Howard H. Lentner. 2006. Hegemony and Power. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

Gianfranco Poggi. 2001. Forms of Power. Malden, MA.: Polity Press.

Angus Steward. 2001. Theories of Power and Domination. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Keith Dowding. 1996. Power. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

B. Hindess. 1996. Discourses of Power. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell.

T.E. Wartenberg, ed. 1992. Rethinking Power. Albany, N.Y.: SUNY Press.

Michael Mann. 1986. The Sources of Social Power. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Steven Lukes, ed. 1986. Power. New York: New York University Press.

J. Gaventa. 1980. Power and Powerlessness. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

T. Benton. 1981. “`Objective’ Interests and the Sociology of Power.” Sociology 15 (2): 161-184.

Dennis H. Wrong. 1979. Power, Its Forms, Bases, and Uses. Oxford Basil Blackwell.

7

September 16th Power, Knowledge, and ExpertiseRequired:Nikolas Rose and Peter Miller. 1992. “Political Power Beyond the State: Problematics of Government.” British Journal of Sociology 43 (2): 172-205.

B. Curtis. 1995. “Taking the State Back Out: Rose and Miller on Political Power.” British Journal of Sociology 46 (4): 575-89.

Recommended:Simon Gunn. 2006. “From Hegemony to Governmentality: Changing Conceptions of Power in Social History.” Journal of Social History 39 (3): 705-720.

Michael Goldman. 2005. Imperial Nature. New Haven: Yale University Press.

James Ferguson and Akhil Gupta. 2002. “Spatializing States: Toward an Ethnography of Neoliberal Governmentality.” American Ethnologist 29 (4): 981-1002.

Nikolas Rose. 1999. Powers of Freedom. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Andrew Barry, Thomas Osborne, and Nikolas Rose, eds. 1996. Foucault and Political Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Naomi Scheman. 1993. Engenderings. N.Y.: Routledge.

Anne Barron. 1996. “The Governance of Schooling: Genealogies of Control and Empowerment in the Reform of Public Education.” Studies in Law, Politics, and Society. 15: 167-204.

Wendy Brown. 1995. States of Injury: Power and Freedom in Late Modernity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

David Arnold. 1994. “The Colonial Prison: Power, Knowledge, and Penology in 19th Century India.” Subaltern Studies 8: 148-87.

Thomas Osborne. 1993. “Bureaucracy as a Vocation: Governmentality and Administration in Nineteenth Century Britain. Journal of Historical Sociology. 7 (3): 289-313.

Alan Hunt. 1992. “Foucault’s Expulsion of Law: Toward a Retrieval.” Law and Social Inquiry 17 (1): 1-38.

Dorothy Smith. 1990. The Conceptual Practices of Power. Boston: Northeastern U. Press.

Michel Foucault, 1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977. New York: Pantheon.

8

September 23rd States, Capitalism, and Social ClassesRequired:Fred Block. 1988. “The Ruling Class Does not Rule: Notes on the Marxist Theory of the State.” In Revising State Theory. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 51-68. Theda Skocpol. 1985. “Bringing the State Back In: Strategies of Analysis in Current Research.” In Peter Evans, Dietrich Rueschemey, and Theda Skocpol, eds. Bringing the State Back In. Cambridge University Press, 3-37.

Paul Cammack. 1989. “Review Article: Bringing the State Back In?” British Journal of Political Science. 19 (2): 261-90.

Recommended: G. William Domhoff. 1996. State Autonomy or Class Dominance? N.Y.: Aldine de Gruyter.

Peter Evans. 1995. Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Clyde Barrows. 1993. Critical Theories of the State. Madison: U. of Wisconsin Press.

Bob Jessop. 1990. State Theory. University Park: Penn State University Press.

Charles Tilly. 1990. Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990-1992. Blackwell.

Michael Mann. 1988. States, War, and Capitalism. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell.

Anthony Giddens. 1985. The Nation-State and Violence. Berkeley: U. of California Press.

Dietrich Rueschemeyer, Peter Evans, and Theda Skocpol, eds. 1985. Bringing the State Back In. N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.

Martin Carnoy. 1984. The State and Political Theory. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton U. Press.

B. Badie and P. Birnbaum. 1983. The Sociology of the State. Chicago: U. of Chicago Press.

Ralph Miliband. 1983. Class Power and State Power. London: Verso.

Eric Nordlinger. 1981. On the Autonomy of the Democratic State. Cambridge: Harvard U. Press.

David Gold, Clarence Y.H. Lo, and Erik Olin Wright. 1975. Recent Developments in Marxist Theories of the Capitalist State.” Monthly Review October/November: 29-51.

Nicos Poulantzas. 1973. Political Power and Social Classes. London: New Left Books.

9

September 30th The State and CultureRequired:Mara Loveman. 2005. “The Modern State and the Primitive Accumulation of Symbolic Power.” American Journal of Sociology 110 (6): 1651-1683.

John Meyer. 1999. “The Changing Cultural Content of the Nation-State: A World Society Perspective.” In George Steinmetz, ed. State/Culture. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell U. Press, 123-143.

Tim Mitchell. 1991. “The Limits of the State: Beyond Statist Approaches and Their Critics.” American Political Science Review 85 (1): 77-96.

Recommended: David L. Swartz. 2013. “Bourdieu’s Analysis of the State.” Symbolic Power, Politics, and Intellectuals. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 123-153.

Thomas Biebricher. 2013. “Critical Theories of the State: Governmentality and the Strategic-Relational Approach.” Constellations 20 (3): 388-405.

Brian Dill. 2013. Fixing the African State. N.Y.: Palgrave Macmillan.

Julia Adams. 2005. The Familial State. Cornell University Press.

Phillip Gorski. 2003. The Disciplinary Revolution. University of Chicago Press.

Jeffrey W. Rubin. 2002. “The State as Subject.” Political Power & Social Theory. 15: 107-131.

James Scott. 1998. Seeing Like a State. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Eiko Ikegami. 1995. The Taming of the Samurai. Cambridge, MA: Harvard U. Press

Mabel Berezin. 1994. “Cultural Form and Political Meaning.” American Journal of Sociology 99: 1237-86.

David Laitin, et al. 1994. “Language and the Construction of States: The Case of Catalonia in Spain.” Politics and Society 22: 5-29.

Philip Corrigan, Derek Sayer, and Gerald Edward Aylmer. 1985. The Great Arch: English State Formation as Cultural Revolution. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Norbert Elias. 1982. State Formation and Civilization. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

10

October 7th Globalization, Corporations, Localities, and the State in a Digital EraRequired:Linda Weiss. 1998. “The State is Dead: Long Live the State.” and “The Myth of the Powerless State.” The Myth of the Powerless State. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell U. Press, 1-13, 188-211.

Colin Crouch. 2013. “From Markets versus States to Corporations versus Civil Society?” in Armin Schafer and Wolfgang Streeck, eds. Politics in an Age of Austerity. Cambridge, U.K.: Polity Press, 219-238.

Taylor Owen. 2015. “The Crisis of the State.” in Disruptive Power: The Crisis of the State in the Digital Era. N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 189-244.

Recommended:John Agnew. 2009. Globalization and Sovereignty. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

John Holloway. 2005. Change the World Without Taking Power. Ann Arbor, MI: Pluto Press.

Justin Rosenberg. 2000. The Follies of Globalization Theory: Polemical Essays. London: Verso.

Colin Hines. 2000. Localization: A Global Manifesto. London: Earthscan.

Peter Evans. 1997. “The Eclipse of the State? Reflections on Stateness in an Era of Globalization.” World Politics 50: 62-87.

Michael Mann. 1997. “Has Globalization Ended the Rise of the Nation-State?” Review of International Political Economy 4 (3): 472-96.

Leo Panitch. 1997. “Rethinking the Role of the State.” In James H. Mittelman, ed. Globalization: Critical Reflections. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 83-113.

Susan Strange. 1996. The Retreat of the State. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Saskia Sassen. 1996. Losing Control? Sovereignty in an Age of Globalization. N.Y.: Columbia University Press.

Hendrik Spruyt. 1994. “The Origins, Development, and Possible Decline of the Modern State.” Annual Review of Political Science 5:127-50.

John Holloway. 1994. “Global Capital and the State.” Capital and Class. 52 (Spring): 23-49.

David Held. 1991. “Democracy, the Nation-State and the Global System.” In David Held, ed. Political Theory Today. Stanford, CA: Stanford U. Press, 197-235.

11

October 14th The Politics of Nation-BuildingRequired: Rogers M. Smith. 2003. Stories of Peoplehood: The Politics and Morals of Political Membership. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 19-71.

Crawford Young. 1982. “Nationalizing the Third World State: Categorical Imperative or Mission Impossible?” Polity 15 (2): 161-181.

Recommended: Sam Pryke. 2009. Nationalism in a Global World. N.Y.: Palgrave Macmillan.

Craig Calhoun. 2007. Nations Matter. N.Y.: Routledge.

Umut Ozkirimli. 2005. Contemporary Debates on Nationalism. N.Y.: Palgrave Macmillan.

Jyoti Puri. 2004. Encountering Nationalism. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Anthony Marx. 2003. Faith in Nation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tom Nairn. 1997. Faces of Nationalism: Janus Revisited. London: Verso.

Jocelyne Couture, Kai Nelson, and Michael Seymour, eds. 1996. Rethinking Nationalism.University of Calgary Press.

Craig Calhoun. 1997. Nationalism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Kathryn Manzo. 1996. Creating Boundaries: The Politics of Race and Nation. Lynne Rienner.

Gopal Balakrishnan, ed. 1996. Mapping the Nation. London: Verso.

Anthony Smith. 1995. Nations and Nationalism in a Global Era. Maiden, MA: Blackwell.

Partha Chatterjee. 1993. Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World: A Derivative Discourse. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Leah Greenfield. 1992. Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity. Cambridge: Harvard U. Press.

Benedict Anderson. 1991. Imagined Communities. London: Verso.

Etienne Balibar and Emmanuel Wallerstein. 1991. Race, Nation, Class: Ambiguous Identities. London: Verso.

Reinhard Bendix. 1964. Nation-Building and Citizenship. N.Y.: Wiley.

12

October 21st Citizenship, Exclusion/Inclusion, and the Politics of BelongingRequired: Ronald Aminzade. 2013. “The Dialectic of Nation Building in Post-Colonial Tanzania.” The Sociological Quarterly. 54: 335-366.

David Miller. 2000. “Bounded Citizenship” in Citizenship and National Identity. Polity Press, 81-96.

Yasemin Soysal. 2000. “Citizenship and Identity: Living in Diasporas in Post-War Europe?” Ethnic and Racial Studies 23 (1): 1-15.

James Hampshire. 2013. “The Politics of Openness.” The Politics of Immigration. Cambridge, U.K.: Polity Press, 36-54.

Recommended: Bronwen Manby. 2009. Struggles for Citizenship in Africa. Zed Books.

Linda Bosniak. 2006. The Citizen and the Alien. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Aneesh Aneesh. 2006. Virtual Migration. Durham: Duke University Press.

Charles Tilly. 2005. “Boundaries, Citizenship, and Exclusion.” Identities, Boundaries, and Social Ties. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers, 171-184.

Seyla Benhabib. 2004. The Rights of Others. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bonnie Honig. 2001. Democracy and the Foreigner. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton U. Press.

Richard Falk. 2000. “The Decline of “Citizenship in an Era of Globalization.” Citizenship Studies. 4: 5-17.

Gerard Delanty. 2000. Citizenship in a Global Age. Open University Press.

Will Kymlicka & Wayne Norman, eds. 2000. Citizenship in Diverse Societies. Oxford U. Press.

Christian Joppke. 1999. Immigration and the Nation-State. Oxford: Oxford U. Press.

Aihwa Ong. 1999. Flexible Citizenship. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.

David Jacobson. 1996. Rights Across Borders. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Jeremy Hein. 1993. “Refugees, Immigrants, and the State.” Annual Review of Sociology 19:43-59.

13

October 28th Democracy and Political ParticipationRequired:Norberto Bobbio. 1978. “Are There Alternatives to Representative Democracy?” Telos 35 (Spring): 17-30.

Benjamin Barber. 1984. “Citizenship and Community: Politics as Social Being.” Strong Democracy. Berkeley: University of California Press, 213-260.

Claus Offe. 2013. “Participatory Inequality in the Austerity State: A Supply-Side Approach.” In Armin Schafer and Wolfgang Streek, eds. Politics in an Age of Austerity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 196-218. Recommended: Bruch, Sarah K., Myra Marx Ferree, and Joe Soss. 2010. “Democracy, Paternalism, and the Incorporation of Disadvantaged Citizens.” American Sociological Review. 75 (2): 205-226.

G. Smith. 2009. Democratic Innovations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

John Gastil. 2008. Political Communication and Deliberation. Newbury Park, Ca: Sage.

Boaventura de Sousa Santos, ed. 2007. Democratizing Democracy. London: Verso.

Chambers, Simone. 2004. “Deliberative Democratic Theory.” Annual Review of Political Science 6:307-26.

Archon Fung. 2004. Empowered Participation. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Archon Fung and Erik Olin Wright. 2003. Deepening Democracy. London: Verso.

James Fishkin & Peter Laslett. 2003. Debating Deliberative Democracy. London: Blackwell.

Ian Doherty. 2001. “Democracy Out of Balance: Civil Society Can’t Replace Political Parties.” Policy Review 106: 25-35.

Gianpaolo Baiocchi. 2001. “Participation, Activism, and Politics: The Porto Alegre Experiment and Deliberative Democratic Theory.” Politics and Society 29 (1): 43-72.

Seymour Martin Lipset. 2000. “The Indispensability of Political Parties.” Journal of Democracy. 11 (1): 48-55.

David Plotke. 1997. “Representation is Democracy.” Constellations 4 (1): 19-34.

14

November 4th Development and DemocracyRequired:C.D. Lummis. 1991. "Development Against Democracy," Alternatives 16: 31-66.

Adrian Leftwich. 1996. “On the Primacy of Politics in Development.” In Adrian Leftwich, ed., Democracy and Development: Theory and Practice. Cambridge, U.K.: Polity Press, 3-24.

Recommended:

Allen F. and Barbara S. Isaacman. 2013. Dams, Displacement, and the Delusion of Development. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press.

Matthew Lange and Dietrich Rueschemeyer, eds. 2005. States and Development: Historical Antecedents of Stagnation and Advance. N.Y.: Palgrave Macmillan.

Pierre Englebert. 2002. State Legitimacy and Development in Africa. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.

Adam Przeworski et al. 2000. Democracy and Development. Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press.

Amartya Sen. 1999. Development as Freedom. New York: Anchor Books.

Michael Bratton & N. Van de Walle. 1997. Democratic Experiments in Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Arturo Escobar. 1995. Encountering Development. London: ZED.

Naila Kabeer. 1994. Reversed Realities: Gender Hierarchies in Development Thought. Verso.

James Ferguson. 1994. The Anti-Politics Machine. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Larry Diamond. 1992. “Economic Development and Democracy Reconsidered.” In Gary Marks and Larry Diamond, eds. Reexamining Democracy. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 93-139.

Dietrich Rueschemeyer, Evelyn Stephens, & John Stephens. 1992. Capitalist Development and Democracy. University of Chicago Press.

Thandika Mkandawire. 1992. “The Political Economy of Development with a Democratic Face.” In Giovanni Andrea Cornia et al, eds. Africa’s Recovery in the 1990s. N.Y.: St. Martin’s Press, 296-311.

Kenneth E. Bauzon, ed. 1992. Development and Democratization in the Third World. Washington, D.C.: Taylor and Francis.

15

November 11th The Political Sociology of Colonialism and ImperialismRequired:Steinmetz, George. 2014. “The Sociology of Empires, Colonies, and Postcolonialism.” Annual Review of Sociology. 40: 77-103.

Julian Go. 2009. “The ‘New’ Sociology of Empire and Colonialism.” Sociological Compass. 3 (5): 775-788.

Recommended:George Steinmetz. 2013. Sociology and Empire. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.

Vivek Chibber. 2013. Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital. London: Verso.

Julian Go. 2011. Patterns of Empire. N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.

James Mahoney. 2010. Colonialism and Post-Colonial Development: Spanish America in Comparative Perspective. N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.

Jane Burbank and Fred Cooper. 2010. Empires in World History: Power and the Politics of Difference. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Barkey, Karen. 2008. Empires of Difference. N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.

George Steinmetz. 2007. The Devil’s Handwriting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Herfried Munkler. 2007. Empires. Translated by Patrick Camiller. Malden, MA: Polity Press.

Craig Calhoun, Frederick Cooper, & Kevin Moore, eds. 2006. Lessons of Empire: Imperial Histories and American Power. N.Y.: The New Press.

Zine Magubane. 2004. Bringing the Empire Home. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Graham Harrison. 2004. The World Bank and Africa. N.Y.: Routledge.

Michael Hardt and Antoinio Negri. 2001. Empire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Frederick Cooper and Ann Laura Stoler, eds. 1997. Tensions of Empire. U. of California Press.

Mahmood Mamdani. 1996. Citizen and Subject. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton U. Press.

Basil Davidson. 1992. The Black Man’s Burden. Random House.

Tim Mitchell. 1991. Colonizing Egypt. Berkeley: University of California Press.

16

November 18th Contentious Politics and Political Change

Required: Frances Fox Piven. 2008. “Can Power from Below Change the World?” American Sociological Review 73 (1): 1-14.

Edwin Amenta and Neil Caren. 2007. “The Legislative, Organizational, and Beneficiary Consequences of State-Oriented Challengers.” In David A. Snow, Sarah A. Soule, and Hanspeter Kriesi, eds. The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 461-488.

Charles Tilly. 2006. “Repertoires, Meet Regimes.” Regimes and Repertoires. 2006. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 60-89.

Recommended:Daniel Q. Gillion. 2013. The Political Power of Protest. Cambridge U. Press.

Gregory Maney, Rachel V. Kutz-Flamenbau, Deana Rohlinger, and Jeff Goodwin, eds. 2012. Strategies for Social Change. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

J. Craig Jenkins and William Form. 2005. “Social Movements and Social Change.” In Thomas Janoski, Robert Alford, Alexander Hicks, and Mildred Schwartz, eds. The Handbook of Political Sociology. N.Y.: Cambridge University Press, 331-349.

David S. Meyer, Valerie Jenness, and Helen Ingram, eds. 2005. Routing the Opposition: Social Movements, Public Policy, and Democracy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Marco G. Guigni, Doug McAdam, and Charles Tilly, eds. 1999. How Social Movements Matter. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Marco Guigni. 1998. “Was It Worth the Effort? The Outcomes and Consequences of Social Movements.” Annual Review of Sociology 24: 371-93.

Marco Giugni, Doug McAdam, and Charles Tilly, eds. 1998. From Contention to Democracy. Lanham, N.J.: Rowman & Littlefield.

Paul Burstein, Rachel L. Einwohner, and Jocelyn A. Hollander. 1995. “The Success of Political Movements: A Bargaining Perspective.” In J. Craig Jenkins and Bert Klandermans, eds. The Politics of Social Protest. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 275-95.

Barbara Epstein. 1991. Political Protest & Cultural Revolution. Berkeley: U. of California Press.

Joel Handler. 1978. Social Movements and the Legal System. N.Y.: Academic Press Inc.

17

November 25th The Dynamics of Contentious Politics

Required: Doug McAdam, J. McCarthy, and M.N. Zald. 1996. “Introduction: Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Framing Processes- Toward a Synthetic, Comparative Perspective on Social Movements.” In D. McAdam, J.D. McCarthy, and M.N. Zald, eds., Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1-22.

Jeff Goodwin and James M. Jasper, eds. 2004. “Caught in a Winding, Snarling Vine: The Structural Bias of Political Process Theory.” In Jeff Goodwin & James M. Jasper, eds. Rethinking Social Movements. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 3-30.

Charles Tilly. 2004. “Wise Quacks.” In Jeff Goodwin & James M. Jasper, eds. Rethinking Social Movements. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 31-37.

Recommended: Sidney Tarrow. 2013. The Language of Contention. N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.

Francesca Poletta. 2006. It Was Like a Fever. University of Chicago Press.

Hank Johnston & John A. Noakes, eds. 2005. Frames of Protest. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Jack Goldstone, ed. 2003. States, Parties, and Social Movements. N.Y.: Cambridge U. Press.

Ronald Aminzade et al., eds. 2001. Silence and Voice in the Study of Contentious Politics. N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.

Doug McAdam, S. Tarrow, & C. Tilly. 2001. Dynamics of Contention. N.Y.: Cambridge Univeristy Press.

Jeff Goodwyn. 2001. No Other Way Out: States and Revolutionary Movements, 1945-1991. N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.

Francessa Poletta and James Jaspers M. Jasper. 2001. “Collective Identity and Social Movements.” Annual Review of Sociology 27: 283-305.

Mark Traugott. 1995. Repertoires and Cycles of Collective Action. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.

Craig Jenkins and Bert Klandermans, eds. 1995. The Politics of Social Protest. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

18

December 2nd The Politics of Economic InequalityRequired: Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson. 2010. “How the Winner-Take-All Economy Was Made.” Winner-Take-All Politics. Simon & Shuster, 42-72.

Jan Nederveen Pieterse. 2002. “Global Inequality: Bringing Politics Back In.” Third World Quarterly 23 (6): 1023-1046.

Recommended:

Steve Fraser. 2015. The Age of Acquiescence: The Life and Death of American Resistance to Organized Wealth and Power. N.Y. : Little, Brown.

Dennis Raphael. 2013. “The Politics of Poverty: Definitions and Explanations.” Social Alternatives 32 (1): 5-11.

Jonas Pontusson and David Rueda. 2010. “The Politics of Inequality: Voter Mobilization and Left Parties in Advanced Industrial States.” Comparative Political Studies 43 (6): 675-705.

Neil Fligstein. 2010. “Politics, the Reorganization of the Economy, and Income Inequality, 1980-2009.” Politics and Society 38 (2): 233-242.

Benjamin I. Page and Lawrence R. Jacobs. 2009. Class War: What Americans Really Think about Income Inequality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Melinda Mills. 2009. “Globalization and Inequality.” European Sociological Review 25 (1): 1-8.

Nathan J. Kelly. 2008. The Politics of Income Inequality in the United States. N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.

Larry M. Bartels. 2008. Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Evelyne Huber, Francois Nielsen, Jenny Pribble, & John D. Stephens. 2006. “Politics and Inequality in Latin America and the Caribbean.” American Sociological Review 71 (6): 943-963.

Howard Rosenthal. 2004. “Politics, Public Policy, and Inequality: A Look Back at the 20th Century.” Social Inequality. N.Y.: Russell Sage, 861-892.

David Rueda and Jonas Pontusson. 2000. “Wage Inequality and Varieties of Capitalism.” World Politics 52 (3): 350-383.

Bjorn Gustafon and Mats Johansson. 1999. “In Search of Smoking Guns: What Makes Income Inequality Vary over Time in Different Countries?” American Sociological Review 64: 585-605.

19

December 9th Politics, Gender, and SexualityRequired:

Robert W. Connell. 1990. “The State, Gender, & Sexual Politics.” Theory & Society 19: 507-43.

Ann Shola Orloff. 1996. “Gender and Welfare States.” Annual Review of Sociology 22: 51-78.

Recommended:Margot Canaday. 2009. The Straight State: Sexuality and Citizenship in 20 th C. America . Princeton, N.J.: Princeton U. Press.

Kathleen Hull. 2006. Same-Sex Marriage: The Cultural Politics of Love and Law. Cambridge University Press.

Barbara Hobson. 2005. Feminist Theorizing and Feminisms in Political Sociology.” In Thomas Janoski, Robert Alford, Alexander Hicks, and Mildred A. Schwartz, eds. The Handbook of Political Sociology. N.Y.: Cambridge University Press, 135-152.

Hyun Sook Kim, Jyoti Puri, and H.J. Kim-Puri. 2005. “Conceptualizing Gender-Sexuality-State-Nation: An Introduction.” Gender and Society 19 (2): 137-159.

Lisa Brush. 2003. Gender and Governance. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira.

Lynne A. Haney. 2000. “Feminist State Theory: Applications to Jurisprudence, Criminology, and the Welfare State.” Annual Review of Sociology. 26: 641-666.

Julia O’Connor, Ann Shola Orloff, and Sheila Shaver. 1999. States, Markets, Families. N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.

Vicky Randall & Georgina Waylen, eds. 1998. Gender, Politics, & the State. N.Y.: Routledge.

Eileen Boris. 1995. “The Racialized Gendered State: Constructions of Citizenship in the U.S.” Social Politics 2: 160-180.

Martha Fineman and Isabel Karpin, eds. 1995. Mothers in Law: Feminist Theory and the Legal Regulation of Motherhood. N.Y.: Columbia University Press.

Diane Sainsbury. 1994, ed. Gendering Welfare States. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Wendy Brown. 1992. “Finding the Man in the State.” Feminist Studies 18 (1): 7-34.

Catharine A. McaKinnon. 1991. Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

20

December 16th Race and Politics

Required:Howard Winant. 2004. “One Hundred Years of Racial Politics.” In The New Politics of Race: Globalism, Difference, Justice. Minneapolis: U. of Minnesota Press, 3-24.

Michelle Alexander. 2010. “The New Jim Crow.” The New Jim Crow. N.Y.: The New Press, 173-208.

Recommended:

Joyce Bell. 2014. The Black Power Movement and American Social Work. N.Y.: Columbia University Press.

Melissa Weiner. 2012. “Toward a Critical Global Race Theory.” Sociology Compass 6: 332-350.

Ira Katznelson. 2005. When Affirmative Action was White. N.Y.: W.W. Norton Co.

Michael Hanchard and Erin Aeran Chung. 2004. “From Race Relations to Comparative Racial Politics: A Survey of Cross-National Scholarship on Race in the Social Sciences.” Du Bois Review 1 (2): 319-343.

Jeff Manza and Christopher Uggen. 2004. “Punishment and Democracy: Disenfranchisement of Nonincarcerated Felons in the United States.” Perspectives on Politics 2 (3): 491-505.

Sanford Schram, Joe Soss, and Richard C. Fording, eds. 2003. Race and the Politics of Welfare Reform. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

David Theo Goldberg. 2002. The Racial State. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Howard Winant. 2001. The World is a Ghetto. N.Y.: Basic Books.

Joe Feagin. 2000. Racist America. N.Y.: Routledge.

David Sears, John Hetts, James Sidanius, & Lawrence Bobo. 2000. Racialized Politics: The Debate about Racism in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

J. Morgan Kousser. 1999. Colorblind Injustice. Chapel Hill: U. of North Carolina Press.

Philip A. Klinker & Rogers M. Smith. 1999. The Unsteady March: The Rise and Decline of Racial Equality in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Robert C. Lieberman. 1998. Shifting the Color Line. Cambridge, MA: Harvard U. Press.

Donald Kinder & Lynn M. Sanders. 1996. Divided by Color. Chicago: U. of Chicago Press.

21

John Solomos and Les Black.1995. Race, Politics, and Social Change. London: Routledge.

COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS POLICYGRADES: University academic achievement is graded under two systems: A-F (with pluses and minuses) and S-N. Choice of grading system and course level (1xxx/3xxx/4xxx) is indicated on the registration website; changes in grade scale may not be made after the second week of the semester. Some courses may be taken under only one system; limitations are identified in the course listings. University regulations prescribe the grades that will be reported on your transcript.

I Incomplete, a temporary symbol assigned when the instructor has a "reasonable expectation" that you 1) can successfully complete unfinished work on your own no later than one year from the last day of classes and 2) believes that legitimate reasons exist to justify extending the deadline for course completion. The instructor may set date conditions for make-up work. If a course is not completed as prescribed or not made up as agreed within the year, the I will lapse to an F if registered on the A-F grade base or an N if registered on the S-N grade base.

W Official withdrawal from a course after the end of the second week of the semester. You must file a course cancellation request before the end of the sixth week of the semester to ensure that the W, rather than the F, will be formerly entered on your record.

CLASS ATTENDANCE: As a CLA student, you are responsible for attending class and for ascertaining the particular attendance requirements for each class or department. You should also learn each instructor's policies concerning make-up of work for absences. Instructors and students may consult the CLA Classroom, Grading, and Examination Procedures Handbook for more information on these policies (http://advisingtools.class.umn.edu/cgep/).COURSE PERFORMANCE AND GRADING: Instructors establish ground rules for their courses in conformity with their department policies and are expected to explain them at the first course meeting. This includes announcement of office hours and location, the kind of help to be expected from the instructor and teaching assistants, and tutorial services, if available. The instructor also describes the general nature of the course, the work expected, dates for examinations and paper submissions, and expectations for classroom participation and attendance. Instructors determine the standards for grading in their classes and will describe expectations, methods of evaluation, and factors that enter into grade determination. The special conditions under which an incomplete (I) might be awarded also should be established. The college does not permit you to submit extra work to raise your grade unless all students in the class are afforded the same opportunity.CLASSROOM BEHAVIOR: You are entitled to a good learning environment in the classroom. Students whose behavior is disruptive either to the instructor or to other students will be asked to leave (the policies regarding student conduct are outlined in the CLA Classroom, Grading, and Examination Procedures Handbook on-line at http://advisingtools.class.umn.edu/cgep/).SCHOLASTIC CONDUCT: The University Student Conduct Code defines scholastic dishonesty as follows:

Scholastic Dishonesty means plagiarizing; cheating on assignments or examinations; engaging in unauthorized collaboration on academic work; taking, acquiring, or using test materials without faculty permission; submitting false or incomplete records of academic achievement; acting alone or in cooperation with another to falsify records or to obtain dishonestly grades, honors, awards, or professional endorsement; altering, forging, or misusing a University academic record; or fabricating or falsifying data, research procedures, or data analysis. Scholastic dishonesty includes, but is not limited to, the description above. It could also be said that scholastic dishonesty is any act that violates the rights of another student with respect to academic work or that involves misrepresentation of a student's own work. Also included would be cheating on assignments or examinations, inventing or falsifying research or other findings with the intent to deceive, submitting the same or substantially similar papers (or

22

creative work) for more than one course without consent of all instructors concerned, depriving another of necessary course materials, and sabotaging another's work. Should misconduct arise, the college's Scholastic Conduct Committee in cooperation with the Office of Student Academic Integrity/Student Judicial Affairs (OSAI/SJA) assists instructors in resolving cases, reviews cases in which students believe themselves unfairly treated, and checks for multiple offenses in different courses. Faculty members who suspect students of scholastic misconduct must report the matter to OSAI/SJA. Students cannot evade (intentionally or unintentionally) a grade sanction by withdrawing from a course before or after the misconduct charge is reported. This also applies to late withdrawals, including discretionary late cancellation (also known as the "one-time-only drop").

A REMINDER OF RELEVANT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES* SOCIOLOGY DEPARTMENT POLICIES *

Grade Information: Grades are due in the Office the Registrar within 3 business days after the final examination. No information regarding grades will be released by the department office staff to anyone except designated personnel in Records and college offices. Students may access their own grades through their computer account. They may do this by following the directions on the One Stop web site at http://onestop.umn.edu/.

Incompletes: It is the instructor's responsibility to specify conditions under which an Incomplete (I) grade is assigned. Students should refer to the course syllabus and talk with the instructor as early as possible if they anticipate not completing the course work. Coursework submitted after the final examination will generally be evaluated down unless prior arrangements are made in writing by the instructor. University policy states that if completion of the work requires the student to attend class in substantial part a second time, assigning an “I” grade is NOT appropriate. Incompletes are appropriate only if the student can make up the coursework independently with the same professor.

Grade Changes: Grades properly arrived at are not subject to renegotiation unless all students in the class have similar opportunities. Students have the right to check for possible clerical errors in the assignment of grades by checking with the instructor and/or teaching assistant.Students with justifiable complaints about grades or classroom procedures have recourse through well-established grievance procedures. You are expected to confer first with the course instructor. If no satisfactory solution is reached, the complaint should be presented in writing to the department associate chair and/or the department academic advisor (909 Soc Sci). If these informal processes fail to reach a satisfactory resolution, other formal procedures for hearing and appeal can be invoked. See the departmental advisor in 923 Social Sciences to explore options.

Disability Services: Students with disabilities that affect their ability to participate fully in class or to meet all course requirements are encouraged to bring this to the attention of the instructor so that appropriate accommodations can be arranged. For more info contact Disabilities Services in 230 McNamara.

Sexual Harassment: University policy prohibits sexual harassment as defined in the December 1998 policy statement, available at the Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action. Questions or concerns about sexual harassment should be directed to this office in 419 Morrill Hall.

General information, Sociology Department, 909 Social Sciences - 624-4300

23

Director of Graduate Studies, Professor Ann Meier, 1127 Social Sciences – 624-7230

Graduate Program Associate, Becky Drasin, 931 Social Sciences - 624-2093

24