Pol 266: Pol & culture course schedule

S10

Politics, schmolitics.

Why bothering studying such a corrupted topic? All one has to do is to turn on the t.v. or fire up the computer to find ample evidence of the hollowness of the pursuit, and so-called pundits have turned political discourse into exceedingly dull spitting contests. Politics is why nothing good ever gets done.

Whether or not you agree with this dismal evaluation of what was once the highest science, it is arguable that, nonetheless, politics matters. In this course we’ll examine why it matters, how politics works and doesn’t work—and for whom it works and doesn’t work. But this is not just a course about politics, but politics and culture. It is one thing to map out the perfect political structure on paper, and quite another to apply it on the ground. The concept of ‘political culture’ is as old as Aristotle, taking into account such things as the history and traditions of a society, its religion, economic structures, natural resources, military traditions, and ethnic groupings, among other elements.

Yet it is only in the past few decades that scholars have begun to look seriously at the role of women as something which both affects and is affected by political culture. Thus, in this course we will consider how women around the world live amid political culture, to consider those lives on the ground, and how to understand both the lived experience and the concepts which we use to make sense of political life. In particular, we will look at the status of women in light of the universal promises of rights for all to develop into full human beings and consider how well these promises are, and are not, fulfilled for women.

This is not an easy. Some of the issues discussed in this course may cause outrage, bewilderment, or even despair. That one’s reactions to these matters may be complex is only fitting, for politics is complex, and involves the best and worst and nuttiest of human actions. It is therefore helpful to remember that a certain detached, if highly aware, bemusement is often a good starting, and sometimes ending, point for any analysis. Humor, too, is a vital part of political culture.

As for the particulars of this course, it is expected that you attend class, bring your books, and participate in discussions. I prefer lively discussions, so thoughtful questions and comments of all sorts are always encouraged. Since class sessions will be devoted largely to discussions based on the topics raised by the various authors, you should read the material around the same time that it has been assigned..Finally, I may modify the assigned readings, and will announce such modifications in lecture.

Required readings (available at the bookstore or online):
Margaret Atwood, The Handmaid’s Tale, Random House, 1998; 978 038 549 0818
Barbara Ehrenreich & Arlie Russell Hochschild, eds., Global Woman, 2002, 978 080 507 5090
Martha Nussbaum, Women and Development, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2001; 978 052 100 3858
Susan Moller Okin, Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women? Princeton Univ. Press, 1999; 978 038 547 5778

grading:
Short papers (1000-1250 words each)        30%    (Due February 26, March 26)
Term paper (2500-3000 words)            25%    (Due May 14)
Final exam                    30%
Attendance & participation            15%

All work must be handed in during class on the due date. No electronic copies will be accepted – NO EXCEPTIONS. If you run into any problems with the course or with deadlines, it is imperative that you speak with me immediately.

Class 1 Introduction; What is politics, What is culture
January 29: Intro to class; discussion

Class 2 Capabilities approach
February 5: Discussion, cont.; ontology; Nussbaum, Introduction

*February 12: Lincoln’s Birthday—Campus Closed: NO CLASS*

Class 3: Capabilities approach
February 19: Nussbaum, ch. 1 (skip § III, pp. 59-70)

Class 4 Capabilities, cont.                        *First paper due: February 26

February 26: Nussbaum, ch. 1 (skip § III, pp. 59-70)

Classs 5 Choice?
March 5: Nussbaum, ch. 2 (skip § III-IV, pp.122-148); Okin, pt. 1-Okin

Class 6 Questions and confrontations
March 12:  Okin (Pollitt, Kymlicka, An-Na‘im, Post, Parekh, Sassen, Bhabha, Tamir, Raz, Halley)

Classes 7 The ultimate good?
March 19: Nussbaum, ch. 3 (skim § IV, pp. 198-206);  Atwood, §§ I-III

Class 8: Religion, cont.                            *Second paper due: March 26
March 26: Nussbaum, ch. 3 (skim § IV, pp. 198-206); Okin (Honig, al-Hibri, Sunstein, Nussbaum); Atwood, §§ IV-VIII

*Spring Break March 29-April 5: NO CLASSES*

Class 9 Nightmare or reality?
April 9: Atwood §§ IX-XII

Class 10 Household labor: power and care and, oh yeah, sex, too
April 16: Ehrenreich & Hochschild [E&H] (Introduction; Hochschild; Cheever; Hondagneu-Sotelo; Rivas)

Class 11: Household labor, cont.
April 23: Nussbaum, ch. 4; E&H (Ehrenreich, Anderson, Constable, Zarembka, Gamburd, Lan)

Class 12 Sex and work and politics, again
April 30: Okin (Gilman); E&H (Rivas, Brennan, Bales) Atwood §§ XIII-XIV

Class 13 Home and world, in their own ways
May 7: Atwood §§ XV & Historical Notes

Classes 14 Home and world and everything
May 14: Nussbaum, conclusion; Okin, Reply            *Term paper due: May 14

FINAL: TBA

Posted in Pol 266 Politics and Culture | Tagged , | Leave a comment

LEH 300: Online required readings

As noted on the syllabus, some of the readings are available online. You can find them either through the links listed under ‘Bioethics sites & docs‘ or directly, below:

Belmont Report

Department of Energy Human Genome Project Information: The science behind the Human Genome Project

National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI): Deoxyribonucleic acid; Chromosomes; A brief guide to genomics; A brief history of the human genome project; Genetic mapping

National Institutes of Health (NIH) Guidelines on Human Stem Cell Research

NIH Stem Cell Basics (html format here—read all 8 questions)

National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC), Ethical Issues in Human Stem Cell Research, Executive Summary; Vol I: Report and Recommendations; Vol III: Religious Perspectives

President’s Council on Bioethics, Monitoring Stem Cell Research (also available in html here)

President’s Council on Bioethics, Reproduction & Responsibility (also available in html here)

And HIGHLY RECOMMENDED: The special issue of Science, on stem cells, 26 June 2009
Vol 324, Issue 5935. You can access the journal through the library system.

Posted in LEH 300 Bioethics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

LEH 300: Bioethics course schedule

How this works: While the bulk of class time will be given over to discussion, there is a fair amount of reading, both online and in books, required for the course. It is recommended that you read the material prior to class, so that you can participate fully in the discussions.

Required reading (books available at the bookstore or online):
Michael Ruse and Christopher Pynes, eds. The Stem Cell Controversy, 2006, 9781591024040
Liza Mundy, Everything Conceivable, 2008, 9781400095377

You will also be required to read selections from online readings, listed on the back, and linked on the website. These readings are <in brackets>; and a number require AdobeReader.

Course requirements:
Attendance & participation: 20%
Science quiz, February 25: 20%
Two papers (2500-2750 words each, due April 8 & May 13, respectively): 60%

Papers MUST be in hard-copy format: no electronic copies will be accepted—NO EXCEPTIONS.
Class 1 January 28: Introduction; A bit of background. . .
Class 2, February 4: Into the cell!
*<Dept of Energy Human Genome Project Information: The science behind the HGP>
*<National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI): Deoxyribonucleic acid>
*<National Bioethics Advisory Commission, Ethical Issues in Human Stem Cell Research, Vol I, ch. 2>
*<National Institutes of Health (NIH): Stem Cell Basics>
*<President’s Council on Bioethics (PCB), Monitoring Stem Cell Research, ch. 4>
*Suggested: <NHGRI Chromosomes; A Brief Guide to Genomics; Genetic Mapping; A Brief History of the Human Genome Project>

*February 18: Monday schedule—NO CLASS*

Class 3 February 11 Cells, stem cells, and embryos
*<PCB, Reproduction and Responsibility, ch. 2 §I; ch. 3 §I; ch 4 §I; ch. 5 §I>
Class 4 February 25 So, how to think about all this?                Science quiz
*<The Belmont Report>
*<NBAC, Ethical Issues, Vol I, ch 4>
*<PCB, Monitoring Stem Cell Research, ch 3 >
Class 5 March 4 Ethics and stem cells
*Ruse & Pynes (R&P) Stem Cell Controversy, chs. 11-12, 14-15, 18, 22
Class 6 March 11 Religion and stem cells
*<NBAC, Ethical Issues, Vol III Religious Perspectives>
*R&P, ch. 20
Class 7 March 18 Stem cell policy: history
* <NBAC, Ethical Issues, Vol I, ch. 3>
*<PCB, Monitoring, ch 2; appendices B,C, and D>
*R&P, chs. 2, 13, 23, 24
Class 8 March 25 Assisted reproductive technologies: why?
*Mundy, prologue, chs. 1-4
*<PCB, Reproduction & Responsibility, ch. 2 §II>

*Spring Break March 29-April 5*

Class 9 April 8 ART, variations and complications                Paper 1 due
*Mundy, chs. 5-9
*<PCB, Reproduction & Responsibility, ch. 3 § II>
Class 10 April 15 Variations & complications, cont.
*Mundy, chs. 10-13
*<PCB, Reproduction & Responsibility, ch. 4 §II>
Class 11 April 22 Complications, and then some
*Mundy, ch. 14, epilogue
*<PCB, Reproduction & Responsibility, ch. 5 §II; ch. 6 – all>
Class 12 April 29 Policy! Ethics! Policy!
*<NIH Guidelines on Human Stem Cell Research>
*R&P, chs. 17, 26-28
Class 13 May 6 Policy! Ethics! Policy—or not
*R&P, ch. 16
*<PCB, Reproduction & Responsibility, ch. 2, §III; ch 3. §III; ch 4 §III, ch. 5 §III>
*Suggested: <PCB Monitoring, appendix E>
Class 14 May 13 How to think, what to do                    Paper 2 due

Posted in LEH 300 Bioethics | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Final exam: 228

Okay, here are all four exam questions:

Pol 228: Final Exam Questions                    F09

FINAL DUE BY MONDAY, DEC 14—NO EXCEPTIONS

Write a response to ONE of the following (series of) questions. Make explicit reference to the arguments of Gutmann and Thompson and, where appropriate, to the Stolzenberg piece and/or the chapters in the Macedo book. (This is, obviously, an open book exam.)

Make sure to answer ALL parts of the question (although you are free to answer the various parts in any order you deem fit). Also, feel free to use examples to illustrate your points—remembering, of course, to explain how the example works, and not simply asserting that it does so.

Answers should be typewritten, approximately 1500 words—and please, NO COVER SHEET.

Good luck!

1. Gutmann and Thompson offer two sets of principles to guide their version of deliberative democracy, with the first set of three principles dealing with the process of deliberation, and the second set of three dealing with the content of that deliberation. What, if anything, do these principles have to do with actual politics? A number of authors in Macedo argue that deliberative democracy appears to have very little to do with governance, or with the day-to-day activities of politics; what, specifically, are their objections? Are there ways to adapt Gutmann & Thompson’s schema so as to take account of these objections? What of the notion that deliberative democracy is the best form of democracy? Is it? Or is it best suited to a specific set of issues or to a specific kind of politics or level of governance? Whether deliberation is the main form or only a part of democratic politics, how does it fit within politics generally?

2. Gutmann and Thompson note that ‘Of the challenges American democracy faces today, none is more formidable than the problem of moral disagreement,’ and that the best way to deal with such disagreement is through their version of deliberative democracy. Are they correct in arguing that moral disagreement is the most formidable problem in politics? Why discuss moral as opposed to ideological or some other form of disagreement? What of the argument that deliberation can in some circumstances worsen the disagreement? Consider the Mozert v. Hawkins case (as discussed by various authors, including Stolzenberg); was this a good test of Gutmann & Thompson’s version of deliberation? What of the charge that, in consideration of this case, Gutmann & Thompson cloak their own values within their allegedly neutral principles? Could deliberation have led to a different outcome? Finally, what of the need to reach conclusions or form policy, perhaps over the strong and principled objection of one of the parties; do Gutmann and Thompson adequately discuss (what I and others have labeled) coercion in such matters?

3. How could deliberative democracy actually work within the present political system in the United States? Could it work at the national level, or is it better suited to state and local levels? How could it work at these various levels? Or would this approach work better when targeted to particular issues as opposed to particular levels of government? Regardless of whether this is applied to government or issues, who would or should lead this deliberation? Should this deliberation lead to a binding outcome, as in a vote, or serve simply to advise? If meant to advise, how could citizens insure that these deliberative sessions are not ignored by policy-makers? Or is deliberation perhaps best used by citizens themselves, to inform and deal with the differences amongst themselves, with little thought given to policy-making?

4. Gutmann and Thompson focus on deliberation as a means through which to deal with difficult moral issues, i.e., issues in which various sides are likely to see transcendent values and not simply self-interest at stake.  Is their version of deliberation a good way to deal with these issues? Explain. Is it possible that deliberation could exacerbate moral disagreement? If deliberation wouldn’t work, what would? Would it work better to treat morals as simply another interest, subject to the same trade-offs and deals as any other interest? Should we even attempt to resolve matters of great moral disagreement in a pluralistic society, or simply ‘live and let live’? If moral disagreement cannot be overcome, is there any point to deliberation?

Posted in Pol 228 Democracy and Its Critics | Tagged | Leave a comment

Study guide: 266

F09    Pol 266 Study Guide

This will be a closed-book, closed-note exam. While you are encouraged to study together, you must each come up with your own answers and write your own exams.

The exam will be divided into three parts, and all questions will be drawn from the following. Do note that the questions are drawn both from lecture and from the readings. Also, none of these are ‘trick’ questions, that is, if they seem straightforward, they are.

Finally, keep in mind that these questions are pulled not just from Nussbaum, but also lecture, Atwood, and the essays in Okin, and in Ehrenreich & Hochschild

List: FIVE questions will appear on the exam. You will answer ALL. [15 percent, total]
Simply list the answers; no explanations necessary. Note that in some cases more than three answers may be applicable.

1. List the three arguments against universal values.
2. List three capabilities.
3. List three elements of Kymlicka’s argument in favor of group rights.
4. List three categories of women in Gilead, and their associated roles and colors.
5. List three ways sex is an economic matter.
6. List three vulnerabilities of working as a nanny.
7. List three ways sex is a political matter.
8. List three things which affect the definition of the family.

Short answer: SEVEN questions will appear on the exam. You will write on FIVE. [50 percent, total]
Give a BRIEF answer and/or explanation (depending upon the question), and identify if the term is associated with a particular author; answers should be 1-2 blue book pages.

1. How does it help or hurt a nanny to be considered a part of the family?
2. What is filial kin work?
3. Does culture lead politics or politics lead culture?
4. What is Nussbaum’s threshold for justice?
5. What is the difference between political and comprehensive liberalism?
6. Who speaks for culture?
7. What are adaptive preferences?
8. What is the menu of opportunities?
9. What is the public sphere and what is the private sphere?
10. What is ‘emotional labor’?

Essay: TWO questions will appear on the exam. You will write on ONE. [35 percent]
The answer should be comprehensive, drawing on in-class and reading material, and involving not just quick responses to the questions, but an evaluation of those responses.

1. Nussbaum attempts to create a partial theory of justice with her list of central human capabilities. Discuss this list in detail and whether each element is, indeed, indispensable to full human development. Discuss as well whether meeting these requirements leads to justice, or if something else is needed.

2. Is multiculturalism bad for women? Discuss in detail, with reference to particular examples and arguments.

3. Margaret Atwood’s Gilead is a fictional portrayal of a patriarchal republic in which women and men are assigned specific and rigid roles. How realistic is this portrayal? Is it comparable to any societies today? How likely is it that a population used to liberty would (apparently) give in so easily to totalitarian rule? Would such policies likely unite men and women in opposition to such rule, or, as the narrator Offred suspects, divide them? Does Atwood reveal anything to us about human beings and power in general?

4. We’ve spent a lot of time discussing ‘household labor’ in class. What, exactly, constitutes household labor? What is the relationship between household labor and wage-labor? When household labor becomes wage-labor, how is similar to other forms of wage-labor? How is it different? What is the role of men in household labor? Why is household labor still largely performed by women and girls, whether it is paid or unpaid labor?

Posted in Pol 266 Politics and Culture | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Pol 228: half an exam

Pol 228: Final Exam Questions                    S09

FINAL DUE BY MONDAY, DEC 14—NO EXCEPTIONS

Write a response to ONE of the following (series of) questions. Make explicit reference to the arguments of Gutmann and Thompson and, where appropriate, to the Stolzenberg piece and/or the chapters in the Macedo book. (This is, obviously, an open book exam.)

Make sure to answer ALL parts of the question (although you are free to answer the various parts in any order you deem fit). Also, feel free to use examples to illustrate your points—remembering, of course, to explain how the example works, and not simply asserting that it does so.

Answers should be typewritten, approximately 1500 words—and please, NO COVER SHEET.

Good luck!

1. [pending: G&T, principles]

2. [pending: Stolzenberg]

3. How could deliberative democracy actually work within the present political system in the United States? Could it work at the national level, or is it better suited to state and local levels? How could it work at these various levels? Or would this approach work better when targeted to particular issues as opposed to particular levels of government? Regardless of whether this is applied to government or issues, who would or should lead this deliberation? Should this deliberation lead to a binding outcome, as in a vote, or serve simply to advise? If meant to advise, how could citizens insure that these deliberative sessions are not ignored by policy-makers? Or is deliberation perhaps best used by citizens themselves, to inform and deal with the differences amongst themselves, with little thought given to policy-making?

4. Gutmann and Thompson focus on deliberation as a means through which to deal with difficult moral issues, i.e., issues in which various sides are likely to see transcendent values and not simply self-interest at stake.  Is their version of deliberation a good way to deal with these issues? Explain. Is it possible that deliberation could exacerbate moral disagreement? If deliberation wouldn’t work, what would? Would it work better to treat morals as simply another interest, subject to the same trade-offs and deals as any other interest? Should we even attempt to resolve matters of great moral disagreement in a pluralistic society, or simply ‘live and let live’? If moral

Posted in Pol 228 Democracy and Its Critics | Tagged | Leave a comment

Shout out to TNC (266)

First, I’d like to recommend STRONGLY that y’all read Ta-Nahisi Coates’s blog (scroll down in the ‘Blogs’ section to find the link; it’ll open in a new window).

TNC is a fine writer who at times approaches the sublime, but what makes him really valuable is his curiosity, his willingness to question himself and reflect upon his own life. He can also be really funny. Furthermore, the commenters on his blog are terrific (disclosure: I do sometimes comment pseudonymously). TNC moderates the comments, so there’s no racist or hateful nonsense, and he has a low tolerance for ad hominen attacks.

Finally, the man lives in Harlem with his not-quite-wife and their kid, so he’ll occasionally write about NYC.

So check him out. Seriously.

Also, some stories:

AIDS matters; so too do diarrhea and other easily prevented or treated diseases.

Violence in the home might finally be recognized as reason for the US to grant refugee status abroad.

Did religion make her slash her husband?

Alice Dreger continues to think aloud about sex identity, intersex individuals, and sport.

Can’t forget the naked hiker stories now, can we? Here’s one, about a dog who spent money while his humans slept.

Finally, the wonderful Maira Kalman, on the nation’s Capitol; if you like the graphic arts, I highly recommend Kalman. (And if you don’t, well, check her out, and maybe you will!)

 

Posted in Pol 228 Democracy and Its Critics, Pol 266 Politics and Culture | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Follow-ups and new stories (266)

Okay, so I don’t think ‘follow-ups’ is a real phrase—but y’all know what I mean.

Putting the individuals ahead of the community: Haredim abuse victims pursue prosecution.

You can access the two videos of the Swat (Pakistan) schoolgirl, Malala Yousafzai, here; note as well the story in which the vids are embedded.

Carlinhos Brown makes music—and community—in Brazil.

Parts one and two in the New York Times series on the complications of assisted reproductive technologies. (And hey! Take my bioethics class next semester—we’ll be working on this stuff!)

And finally, school for nannies: a fine idea or a ripoff?

Posted in Pol 266 Politics and Culture | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Creating a Biruh Tesfa (266)

Mothers of Ethiopia, the Huffington Post series: Part I, Part II, and Part III; installments IV and V are to come.

From the slide show in Part II:

Mentors from Biruh Tesfa ('Bright Future')

Mentors from Biruh Tesfa ('Bright Future')

This is the work.

Photo by Hanna Ingber Win

Posted in Pol 266 Politics and Culture | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Yoo hoo, UN calling! (266)

First, an apology: the UN is in the East 40s, not 50s. If any of you did go, weeeelllll, it was a nice day for a walk.

Anyway, proof that I hauled my lazy. . . , er, visited the UN, pictures!

The view down 43rd

The view down 43rd

Even tho’ there wasn’t anything particularly fun (protests, arrests, etc.) going on, the General Assembly was still in session, so one could approach the UN site from only a few streets.

It wasn’t a bad thing, however, insofar as this street ended in an overlook and a park. Carved into the stairway leading down from the overlook:

Overused, perhaps, but still not too old

Overused, perhaps, but still not too old

Here’s a nice shot of the city reflected back into the headquarters of the world:

This time, with flags!

Ooo, pretty

Ooo, pretty

I have no idea what was inscribed on these stelae, but they looked cool:

The ball, globe, whatever, is a bit dorky, however

The ball, globe, whatever, is a bit dorky, however

And, of course, the professor in me could not let this go by:

Listen up!

Listen up!

The man knew a thing or two.

Posted in Pol 266 Politics and Culture | Tagged , | Leave a comment