POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY Sociology 8311 - Fall 2017

Friday, 2:30-5:00; 1114 Social Science TowerRon Aminzade 1031 Social Sciences; 612-624-9570 Office Hours: Thursday, 3:00-5:00 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, with a focus on immigration policies. The subsequent eight weeks survey debates over the impact of the internet on political participation and democracy, authoritarian populism and the future of democracy, the politics of food and agricultural development, the political sociology of colonialism and imperialism, the relationship between political parties, social movements, and political change, and the role of emotions in electoral and non-electoral politics. 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 other week, each student 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 Thursday at 2:30 p.m. 2) an 8-10 page book review essay, due October 13 th (see page 5). 3) an 8-10 page essay on democracy and citizenship, due November 10th, addressing one of the questions on page 6 and incorporating material from both the required and recommended readings; and 4) a 3-4 page policy brief, due on December 1st, 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 forty (40) 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 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

Discussion Questions: Your question about the required readings should be no more than 1-2 pages double spaced. It is due on Thursday via e-mail by 2:30 p.m. 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 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 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 Power and the StateSept. 8 Class Introductions; Lecture: The Concept of Power

Exercise: Claims about Power

Sept. 15 Power, Knowledge, and Discourse

Sept. 22 Theories of the State

Sept. 29 The Future of Nation-States in an Era of Neo-Liberal Capitalism Video, Ted Talks: Yanis Varoufakis, “Capitalism Will Eat Democracy-Unless

We Speak Up” (19m51s)

Oct. 6 Nation-States, Globalization, and the Internet Video, Ted Talks: Benjamin Barber, “Why Mayors Should Rule the

World.”(18m5s)

3

II. Nation-Building, Citizenship, and Immigration Oct. 13 The Politics of Nation-Building Book Review Essays Due

Exercise: Nationalism as Lived Experience Arguing for and Against Nationalism

Video, Youtube: Yuval Noah Harari, “Nationalism vs. Globalism” (13m59s)

Oct. 20 The Politics of Immigration, Citizenship, and Belonging Discussion of Book Review Essays Exercise: Minority Rights in a Culturally Diverse Society- Case Studies

III. Democracy, Development, and ColonialismOct. 27 Cyber Politics, Democracy, and Political Participation

Exercise: The Promises and Pitfalls of Participatory Democracy Videos, Youtube: Pia Mancini, “How to Upgrade Democracy for the Internet Era.” (13m29s) and Zeynep Tufekci, “How the Internet Has Made Social Change Easy to Organize, Hard to Win.” (16m15s) Mid-Semester Course Evaluation

Nov. 3 Populism, Authoritarianism, and the Future of Democracy

Nov. 10 The Politics of Food and Agricultural DevelopmentVideo, You Tube: Vandana Shiva, “India’s Green Revolution: More Harm than Good” (8m40s)

Democracy/Citizenship Essays Due

Nov. 17 The Political Sociology of Colonialism and Imperialism Video, Youtube: George Steinmetz Interview: Segments 6, 7 (9m54s, 6m24). Discussion of Democracy/Citizenship Essays

November 24- NO CLASS- Thanksgiving Holiday

IV. Social Movements, Political Parties, and the Politics of EmotionDec. 1 Social Movements, Political Parties, and Strategies for Political Change

Discussion: Trajectories, Strategies, and Alliances of Protest Organizations Video, Youtube: “Doug McAdam & Dalton Conley Discuss Why Some Social Movements Succeed & Others Don’t.” (6m35s)

Policy Briefs Due

Dec. 8 Emotions and Politics Discussion of Policy Briefs What Have We Learned from This Course? Final Course Evaluation

4

BOOK REVIEW ESSAY (8-10 pages)Due October 13th

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 10th

The following questions are suggestions. 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 debate questions for your essay, you are required to discuss your question with me before you start writing. Consult the recommended as well as required readings in answering the question.

Provide a defense, and then a critique, of the following arguments. In making the case for or against each viewpoint, use empirical evidence to support or critique their claims. Which positions in the debate do you find the most and least persuasive? Why?

1) In defining the concept of power and the related concept of interests, we need to focus on subjective interests and intentions expressed by ordinary people in their observable preferences and behaviors and reject the notions of “objective interests”, “false consciousness”, and “misrecognition”. These notions promote an elitism that denies the ability of ordinary people to democratically self-define what is in their best interests.

2) 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.

3) Since trust is critical to a well-functioning democracy, all citizens should be required to share some features of a national public culture and identity. 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 restrict or prevent immigrant 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 citizens.

4) Despite the opportunities offered by new digital technologies for more participatory and horizontal forms of politics, political emancipation still requires the development, extension, and strengthening of representative institutions, rather than their replacement by new forms of direct democracy. In a complex, advanced industrial society requiring bureaucracy, expertise, and an advanced division of labor, there are no viable alternatives to representative democracy based on political parties. 5) In an era of neo-liberal casino capitalism, mediated politics, and increased trans-national flows of refugees and immigrants, authoritarian populism rather liberal democracy is our likely future.

6

REQUIRED AND RECOMMENDED READINGS

September 8th 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: University 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.

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 15th Power, Knowledge, and DiscourseRequired:Barry Smart. 1983. “Genealogy, Critique, and the Analysis of Power.” Foucault, Marxism, and Critique. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 73-90.

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: Jean-Francois Bayart. 2007. Global Subjects: A Political Critique of Globalization. Cambridge, U.K.: Polity Press.

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.

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.

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. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

8

September 22rd Theories of the StateRequired: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, pp. 51-68. Michael Mann. 1989. ‘The Autonomous Power of the State: Its Origins, Mechanisms and Results.” In John Hall, ed. States in History. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell, pp. 109-136.

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

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

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

Theda Skocpol, Peter Evans, & Dietrich Rueschemeyer. 1999. Bringing the State Back In. Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

9

September 29th The Future of Nation-States in an Era of Global Neo-Liberal CapitalismRequired:Aihwa Ong. 2006. “Neoliberalism as Exception, Exception to Neoliberalism.” Neoliberalism as Exception. Durham, N.C.: Duke U. Press, pp. 1-25

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, pp. 219-238.

Wolfgang Streeck. 2014. “How Will Capitalism End?” New Left Review 87: pp. 35-63.

Recommended: William Davie. 2016. “The New Neoliberalism.” New Left Review pp. 101: 121-134.

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

Philip McMichael. 2005. “Globalization.” In Thomas Janoski et al., eds., The Handbook of Political Sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press, pp 461-81.

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

Linda Weiss. 1998. The Myth of the Powerless State. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell U. Press.

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.

10

October 6th Nation-States, Globalization, and the InternetRequired:Taylor Owen. 2015. “The Crisis of the State.” Disruptive Power: The Crisis of the State in the Digital Era. N.Y.: Oxford University Press, pp. 189-244.

Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen. 2013. “The Future of States.” The New Digital Age. N.Y.: Alfred A. Knopf, pp. 82-120.

Elizabeth C. Hanson. 2008. “Global Communication and the Nation-State.” The Information Revolution and World Politics. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, pp. 179-220.

Recommended:Alexa Robertson. 2015. Media and Politics in a Globalizing World. Cambridge, U.K.: Polity Press.

Stephanie Ricker Schulte. 2013. “From Computers to Cyberspace: Virtual Reality, the Virtual Nation, and the CorporoNation.” Cached: Decoding the Internet in Global Popular Culture. N.Y.: New York University Press., pp. 83-112.

Robert Holton. 2011. Globalization and the Nation State. N.Y.: Palgrave Macmillan.

Jamal Shahin. 2007. “The Reassertion of the State: Governance and the Information Revolution.” In Myriam Dunn, Sai Felicia Krisna-Hensel, & Victor Mauer, eds. The Resurgence of the State. Hamshire, U.K.: Ashgate, pp. 9-34.

Zaki Laidi. 2007. The Great Disruption. Cambridge, U.K.: Polity Press.

James Rosenau & J.P. Singh. 2002. Information Technologies and Global Politics. Albany, N.Y.: SUNY Press.

Monroe Price. 2002. Media & Sovereignty: The Global Information Revolution & Its Challenge to State Power. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Mark Poster. 2001. “Nations, Identities, and Global Technologies.” What’s the Matter with the Internet? Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 101-128.

Paul Hirst & Grahame Thompson. 1996. Globalization in Question: The International Economy & the Possibilities of Governance. Cambridge, U.K.: Polity Press.

Mann, Michael. 1993. "Nation-States in Europe and Other Continents: Diversifying, Developing, Not Dying." Daedalus July: 115-140.

11

October 13th The Politics of Nation-BuildingRequired: Ronald Aminzade. 2013. “The Dialectic of Nation-Building in Post-Colonial Tanzania.” The Sociological Quarterly 54: 335-366.

James Ferguson. 2006. “Paradoxes of Sovereignty and Independence: `Real’ and `Pseudo’ Nation-States and the Depoliticization of Poverty.” Global Shadows: Africa in the Neoliberal World Order. Durham, N.C.: Duke U. Press, pp. 50-68.

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

Recommended: Claire Sutherland. 2012. Nationalism in the 21 st Century . Hampshire, U.K.

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

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

Rogers M. Smith. 2003. Stories of Peoplehood: The Politics and Morals of Political Membership. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

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.

Jurgen Habermas. 1998. “The European Nation-State: On the Past & Future of Sovereignty & Citizenship.” The Inclusion of the Other. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 105-27.

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

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. The Nation & Its Fragments. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton U. Press.

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

12

October 20th The Politics of Immigration, Citizenship, and BelongingRequired: David Miller. 2016. “Closed Borders.” Strangers in Our Midst: The Political Philosophy of Immigration. Cambridge: MA: Harvard U. Press, pp. 57-75.

James H. Carens. 2013. “The Case for Open Borders.” The Ethics of Immigration. N.Y.: Oxford University Press, pp. 225-254.

Ronaldo Munck. 2005. “Race, Migration, and Citizenship.” Globalization and Social Exclusion. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press, pp. 101-120.

Recommended: Richard Alba & Nancy Foner. 2015. Strangers No More: Immigration and the Challenges of Integration in North America and Europe. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Katherine Donato & Donna Gabaccia. 2015. Gender & International Migration. N.Y.: Sage.

Tanya Maria Golash-Boza. 2015. Deported: Immigrant Policing, Disposable Labor, and Global Capitalism. N.Y.: New York University Press.

David Scott-FitzGerald & David Cook-Martin. 2014. Culling the Masses: The Democratic Origins of Racist Immigration Policy in the Americas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard U. Press.

James Hampshire. 2013. The Politics of Immigration. Cambridge, U.K.: Polity Press.

Deepa Kumar. 2012. Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire. Chicago: Haymarket Books.

Peter Schrag. 2012. Not Fit for Our Society: Immigration and Nativism. Berkeley: University of California Press.

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

David Bacon. 2009. Illegal People: How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants. Boston: Beacon Press.

Seyla Benhabib. 2004. The Rights of Others: Aliens, Residents, & Citizens. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge U. Press.

Ronald Aminzade. 2003. “From Race to Citizenship: The Indigenization Debate in Post-Socialist Tanzania.” Studies in Comparative International Development. 38, #1: 43-63.

13

October 27th Cyber Politics, Democracy, and Political ParticipationRequired:Natalie Fenton. 2016. “Digital Activism: A New Means of and a New Meaning of Being Political.” Digital, Political, Radical. Cambridge, U.K.: Polity Press, pp. 24-51.

Gianpietro Mazzoleni. 2014. “Mediatization and Political Populism.” In Frank Esser & Jesper Stromback, eds. Mediatization of Politics. Hampshire, U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 42-56

Richard Kahn & Douglas Kellner. 2007. “Globalization, Technopolitics, and Radical Democracy.’’ Radical Democracy and the Internet. Hampshire, U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 17-36. Recommended: Donatella della Porta. 2015. “Democracy is Not a Spectator Sport.” Social Movements in Times of Austerity. Cambridge, U.K.: Polity Press, pp. 157-210.

Murray Bookchin. 2015. The Next Revolution: Popular Assemblies & the Promise of Direct Democracy. London: Verso.

Armin Schafer and Wolfgang Streek, eds., Politics in an Age of Austerity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gaurav Desai, ed. 2013. The Virtual Transformation of the Public Sphere. New Delhi: Routledge.

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

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

R. Kelly Garrett. 2006. “Protest in an Information Society: A Review of the Literature on Social Movements and the New ICTs.” Communication and Society 9, #2: 2002-24.

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

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

Darin Barney. 2000. Prometheus Wired: The Hope for Democracy in the Age of Networked Technology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

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

14

November 3rd Populism, Authoritarianism, and the Future of DemocracyRequired:John B. Judis. 2016. “What is Populism and Why is It Important” and “The Past and Future of Populism.” The Populist Explosion. N.Y., N.Y.: Columbia Global Reports, pp. 12-17, 154-63.

Dylan Riley. 2017. “American Brumaire.” New Left Review 103: 21-32.

Rogers Brubaker. 2017. “Between Nationalism & Populism: The European Populist Movement in Comparative Perspective.” Ethnic & Racial Studies DOI: 10.1080/01419870.217.1294700.

Henry A. Giroux. 2015. “Beyond Orwellian Nightmares and the Politics of the Deep State.” Dangerous Thinking in the Age of the New Authoritarianism. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers, pp. 85-96.

Recommended:Arlie Hochschild. 2016. Strangers in Their Own Land. N.Y.: The New Press.

Jan-Werner Muller. 2016. What is Populism? Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Ronald Inglehart. 2016. “How Much Should We Worry?” Journal of Democracy 27, #3: 18-23.

Dominique Reynie. 2016. “’Heritage Populism’ and France’s National Front.” Journal of Democracy 27, #4: 47-57.

Steven Levitsky & James Loxton. 2013. "Populism and competitive authoritarianism in the Andes." Democratization 20, #1: 107-136.

Andrej Zaslove. 2008. “Here to Stay? Populism as a New Party Type.” European Review 16, #3: 319-336.

Narendra Subramanian. 2007. "Populism in India." SAIS Review of International Affairs 27, #1: 81-91.

Koen Abts & Stefan Rummens. 2007. "Populism versus Democracy." Political Studies 55, #2: 405-424.

Cas Mudde. 2004. “The Populist Zeitgeist.” Government & Opposition 39, #4: 542-63.

Paul Taggart. 2000. Populism.. Buckingham, U.K.: Open University Press.

Nicos Mouzelis. 1985. “On the Concept of Populism.” Politics & Society 14: 329-48.

15

November 10th The Politics of Agriculture and DevelopmentRequired:Rachel Bezner-Kerr. 2012. “Lessons from the Old Green Revolution for the New: Social, Environmental and Nutritional Issues for Agricultural Change in Africa.” Progress in Development Studies 12, 2 & 3: 213-229.

Simon Nicholson. 2015. “Biotechnology and the Global Food Riots: Why Genetically Modified Foods Will Not End World Hunger.” In Guy M. Robinson & Doris A. Carson, eds., Handbook on the Globalization of Agriculture. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishers, pp. 255-272.

Ronald Aminzade, Rachel Schurman, and Francis Lyimo. Forthcoming. “Circulating Discourses: The Case of Agricultural Development in Tanzania.” Sociology of Development.

Recommended:

Shiva, Vandana. 2016. The Violence of the Green Revolution: Third World Agriculture, Ecology, and Politics. London: Zed Books.

Raj Patel. 2013. “The Long Green Revolution.” Journal of Peasant Studies 40, #1: 1-63.

Philip McMichel. 2013. Food Regimes and Agrarian Questions. Nova Scotia, Canada: Fernwood Publishing.

Walden Bello. 2009. The Food Wars. New York: Verso.

William Winders. 2009. The Politics of Food Supply: U.S. Agricultural Policy in the World Economy. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

Sara Curran. 2009. The Global Governance of Food. London: Routledge.

Haroon Akram-Lodhi & Christobal Kay. 2009. Peasants and Globalization: Political Economy, Rural Transformation, & the Agrarian Question. N.Y.: Routledge.

Weis, Anthony. 2007. The Global Food Economy: The Battle for the Future of Farming. London: Zed Books.

Fred Buttel & Philip McMichael, eds., 2005. New Directions in the Sociology of Global Development. Oxford: Eslevier.

Akhil Gupta. 1998. Postcolonial Developments: Agriculture in the Making of Modern India. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.

16

November 17th 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.

Andrea Smith. 2012. “Indigneneity, Settler Colonialism, White Supremacy.” In Daniel Martinez et al., eds. Racial Formation in the 21 st Century , pp. 66-90.

Recommended:Colin Sampson and Carlos Gigoux. 2017. Indigenous Peoples and Colonialism: Global Perspectives. Cambridge, U.K.: Polity Press.

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

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.

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.

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

17

December 1st Social Movements, Political Parties, and Strategies for Change

Required: Manali Desai. 2003. “From Movement to Party to Government: Why Social Policies in Kerala and West Bengal are So Different.” In Jack Goldstone, ed., States, Parties, and Social Movements. N.Y.: Cambridge U. Press, pp. 170-196.

Doug McAdam & Sidney Tarrow. 2013. “Social Movements and Elections: Toward a Broader Understanding of the Political Context of Contention.” In Jacqueline van Stekelenburg, Conny Roggeband, & Bert Klandermans, eds., The Future of Social Movement Research. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 325-46.

Deana Rohlinger, Leslie A. Bunnage, and Jesse Klein. 2014. “Virtual Power Plays: Social Movements, Internet Communication Technology, and Political Parties.” In B. Grofman et al., eds., The Internet and Democracy in Global Perspective. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, pp. 83-109.

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

Doug McAdam & Hilary Boudet. 2012. Putting Social Movements in Their Place. Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press.

Erica Chenoweth & Maria Stephan. 2011. Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Non-Violent Conflict. N.Y.: Columbia U. Press.

Jasper, James M. 2008. Getting Your Way: Strategic Dilemmas in the Real World . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

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

Charles Tilly. 2006. Regimes and Repertoires. 2006. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

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

Ronald Aminzade. 1995. “Between Movement and Party: The Transformation of Mid-Nineteenth Century French Republicanism.” In J. Craig Jenkins & Bert Klandermans, eds., The Politics of Social Protest. Minneapolis, MN: U. of Minnesota Press, pp. 39-62.

18

December 8th Emotions and PoliticsRequired:Ron Aminzade & Doug McAdam. 2001. “Emotions and Contentious Politics.” In Ronald Aminzade et al, eds., Silence and Voice in the Study of Contentious Politics. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge U. Press, pp. 14-50.

Zizi Papacharissi. 2015. “Prelude”, “The Present Affect”, “The Personal as Political on Twitter”, and “Affective Publics.” Affective Publics: Sentiment, Technology, and Politics. N.Y.: Oxford University Press, pp. 1-5, 6-9, 112-114, 115-120.

Stephen Colman. 2013. “What Voting Means.” in How Voters Feel. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-33.

Recommended:Athina Karazogianni & Adi Kuntsman. 2012. Digital Cultures and the Politics of Emotion. N.Y.: Palgrave Macmillan.

Shanto Iyengar, Guarav Sood, & Yphtach Lelkes. 2012. “Affect, Not Ideology: A Social Identity Perspective on Polarization.” American Journal of Political Science. 76, #3: 405-31.

James Jasper. 2011. "Emotions and Social Movements: Twenty Years of Theory and Research." Annual Review of Sociology 37: 285-303.

Nicholas Valentino et al. 2011. "Election Night’s Alright for Fighting: The Role of Emotions in Political Participation." The Journal of Politics 73, #1: 156-170.

Deborah Gould. 2009. Moving Politics: Emotion and ACT UP's Fight against AIDS. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Jack Barbalet. 2006. “Emotions in Politics: From the Ballot Box to Suicide Terrorism.” In Simon Clarke, Paul Hoggett, & Simon Thompson, eds. Emotions, Politics, and Society N.Y.: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 31-55.

Ted Brader. 2006. Campaigning for Hearts and Minds: How Emotional Appeals in Political Ads Work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

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

David Redlawsk, ed. 2006. Feeling Politics: Emotion in Political Information Processing. N.Y.: Palgrave Macmillan.

Jeff Goodwin et al, eds., 2001. Passionate Politics. Chicago: U. of Chicago Press.

19

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 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

20

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

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

21