EMPIRICAL THEORIES OF POLITICS
Professor Lawrence C. Dodd
University of Florida
Spring, 2013
Preliminary Overview
Part One: Introduction
Week One: Class Organization: January 8th
Week Two: Science, Theory and Empirical Inquiry: January 15th
Week Three: Multiple Perspectives on Reality: January 22 nd
Part Two: Foundations of Empirical Theory
Week Four: Social Choice I: January 29th
Week Five: Social Choice II: February 5th
Week Six: Social Structure I: February 12th
Week Seven: Social Learning I: February 19th
Week Eight: Sociocultural Evolution I: February 26th
Week Nine: SPRING BREAK (No Class-March 5th): Prepare Theory Paper I:
Part Three: Advanced Topics in Empirical Theory
Send Class/Dodd a Draft Statement about Theory I paper on Sunday, March 10th
Week Ten: Doing Theory I: Discussing Draft Statement: March 12th
Send Class/Dodd Theory I paper by Sunday Midnight, March 17th
Week Eleven: Doing Theory I: Discussing Final Theory I Paper March 19th
Week Twelve: Social Choice III: March 26th
Week Thirteen: Social Structure II: April 2nd
Week Fourteen: Social Learning II: April 9th
Week Fifteen: Sociocultural Evolution II: April 16th
Send Class/Dodd a Draft Statement about Theory II paper on April 21st
Week Sixteen: Doing Theory II: Class discussions of theory papers: April 23rd
Spring Classes End: April 24th; Possible Potluck that night
Send Dodd Final Theory II Paper by email on May 3rd
1
Seminar Objectives
The purpose of this course is to introduce students to the relevance and role of empirical theory in political
analysis. It seeks to do so in four ways. First, it provides an overview of some basic attributes that
characterize ‘good empirical theory’ and presents several contrasting theoretical traditions in political
analysis. Second, it engages students in learning to think and argue in a manner that is both theoretical -that is, abstract, systematic and reasoned in nature – and empirical – that is, subject to probing,
investigation and testing by empirical observation. Third, it guides students towards the construction of an
empirical theory that will be useful in addressing a puzzle of immediate interest to them; in particular, it
seeks to help students develop theoretical ideas and arguments relevant to their doctoral dissertations.
Fourth, it seeks to alert students to the problems and pitfalls of various forms of theoretical thinking and to
encourage them to think about the broader paradigmatic and philosophical implications of empirical
theories.
The basic assumption of the course is that as we employ empirical theory in political inquiry, we increase
our capacity to clarify, understand, explain, discuss intelligently and perhaps foresee the nature of political
reality. Empirical theory is, then, first and foremost a way of thinking about the world that allows us to
comprehend the world more fully and foresightedly than we would otherwise. Along the way, empirical
theory provides, secondarily, a variety of perspectives, hypotheses and possibilities that we can test both
through empirical research and through observation of predicted outcomes in the real world.. The purpose
of empirical theory, however, is not to provide fodder for our razzle-dazzle statistical techniques,
justifications for exotic field trips or rationales for required research projects, but to provide ways of
thinking about the world that allow us to see it and reason about it more self-consciously, completely,
foresightedly and deeply than we would otherwise.
Much of the ‘test’ of empirical theory, thus, comes not in its utility in ‘research’ but in its sustained
relevance to the real world as evidenced in a theory’s long term capacity to help society at-large discuss,
make sense out of, address and foresee political phenomena. As scholars we seek to contribute plausible
empirical theories to societal dialogue while probing and testing elements of our theories that are
potentially susceptible to immediate disconfirmation; along the way, however, we realize that the most
inventive and far-reaching theories (as with Darwin’s theory of evolution in biology) may involve some
major empirical arguments and assumptions not susceptible to test through currently available data and
methods. Our obligation, as empirical theorists, is thus three-fold: (1) to state our theories in ways that are
subject, in principle, to eventual testing and disconfirmation through potential empirical observation (2) to
pursue immediate test of those elements of our theories that are currently amenable to empirical
observations, being as rigorous, resourceful and disciplined as we can be in this endeavor; and (3) also to
engage in the broader theoretical dialogues of our discipline and society in a conscientious and constructive
manner that seeks to clarify the applicability of our theories to broad puzzles while also evidencing a
significant element of humility that reflects the limits of our capacity to ‘prove’ our theories.
Given this general understanding of the nature and role of empirical theory, in this course we attempt to
understand how scholars generate empirical theories that address intriguing political puzzles, how they test
and apply elements of their theories through empirical observation, and how they can best utilize empirical
theories in broad conversations about politics. We will do so by examining four theoretical traditions:
(1) social choice theories: arguments that emphasize the rational goal-oriented calculus of
individuals in politics, as qualified and informed by social-psychological, cognitive, genetic
and neuro-biological studies;
(2) social structure theories: arguments that emphasize the role of social, institutional and
economic conditions and processes in shaping the context and outcome of political action;
(3) social learning and political psychological theories: arguments that center on the role that
perceptions, attitudes, beliefs, ideas and learning play in shaping individual and group
capacities to make choices in specific contexts; and
(4) socio-cultural evolution theories: arguments that highlight the collective processes by which
goals, structure, beliefs and behavior are reshaped and transformed into new patterns across
time.
2
Each of these four theoretical traditions covers an immense literature that scholars could spend a lifetime
studying. The intent in examining these four traditions is not to engage students in a comprehensive effort
to master each literature, but (1) to introduce them to some foundation concepts and arguments that
illustrate the four distinct ways of theorizing about empirical political reality, and to consider how social
scientists have built on such concepts and arguments in their research and theorizing; (2) to provide some
overview bibliography and discussions that will help students critically assess each theoretical tradition and
engage in the study of the individual theoretical traditions on their own; (3) to help students grasp the
‘logic’ of theorizing in the four different ways, so that students can engage in some initial efforts at theorybuilding and empirical research from each perspective; and (4) to help students combine the different forms
of theorizing into broader empirical interpretations and learn from the interplay of the different traditions.
The overarching logic of the course, in other words, is to engage the student in ‘doing empirical theory’
through the use and combination of four different ways of conceptualizing and analyzing political reality.
Two explicit assumptions throughout the course are that one can learn to ‘do empirical theory’ by studying
and critiquing foundations works and exemplars in the major traditions of empirical theory and that one can
learn to appreciate and critically assess different theoretical traditions by explicitly comparing them to one
another. ‘Doing theory’ involves seeking to make one’s assumptions about the world (or analytic vision)
explicit, to clearly identify key causal principles that operate in one’s assumed world, to develop a core
thesis from one’s assumptions and causal principles that is reasoned and logical, and to pursue the
argument in a systematic manner that addresses a specific puzzle in an intellectually compelling and
empirical plausible manner. As we read different empirical theories, and examine critiques and discussions
of theory, and as we try our hand at building on or emulating such theoretical efforts, we ourselves can
‘become theorists.’
An underlying assumption of the course is that the four different ways of analyzing politics examined in
this course actually capture four different dimensions of politics: the foreground of political calculation
and instrumental action; the background which structures the social pursuit of goals; the connective
pattern of meaning (that is, the shared beliefs and collective ideas about politics and society) that
permeate both the foreground and background so that political actors in the foreground can calculate and
act in ways that relate to the background context; and the dynamic processes which influence the
interaction of foreground, background and connective patterning in ways that systematically reshape reality
across time.
A recurring theme of the course will be that the egregious misunderstandings and mis-predictions of
politics generally come in two ways. First, scholars may fail to be explicit and careful in their assumptions,
causal arguments, logic, empirical referents, and so forth, and thus engage in self-deceptive and faulty
reasoning about the world. Thus much attention must be given to critical assessment of a theory as a
reasoned body of empirical argument. However, it is critical that scholars not become so immersed in and
entranced by the logic and empirical applicability of one tradition that they overlook the second major
problem that can undermine political inquiry: the tendency towards theoretical myopia or intellectual
narrowness. In other words, as scholars focus intensely on one dimension of politics, and one theoretical
tradition, they may overlook interactive processes and conditions that occur across the dimensions of
political life, and that require attentiveness to several theoretical traditions.
Breakthroughs in addressing particular puzzles about politics thus often come, it will be argued, as two or
more theoretical perspectives are combined in ways that allow scholars to address a puzzle in a broad,
comprehensive, interactive and reasoned manner. Throughout the course, therefore, we will not only look
at works that illustrate particular perspectives but also will look at works that combine perspectives. An
additional theme will be that a truly comprehensive understanding of politics requires that we see how
foreground, background, patterned meaning and transformative processes are connected and interact in
ways that change all three and their patterned connections. In consideration of this possibility, the course
also will consider whether an evolutionary perspective on politics might provide a way of connecting these
four dimensions, generating a more comprehensive understanding, and facilitating broader perspectives on
politics that lead to intellectual breakthroughs in our empirical analyses.
3
Course Organization
The organization of the course is as follows. Part One will focus briefly on the nature, role and range of
empirical theory in political inquiry and engage in an overview discussion of several illustrative works that
attend to multiple theoretical perspectives on politics, across foreground, background and connective
patterns. Part Two will attempt to give students a reasonable ‘feel’ for each form of theorizing, and a sense
of how they – separately and in combination – relate to empirical inquiry in students’ primary areas of
scholarly interest. It will thus carry students across literature on foreground or social choice, background or
social structure, connective patterns or social learning, and connective interaction or evolutionary theory.
Part Three will then focus on Advanced Topics in Empirical Theory, with students examining more highly
developed and challenging concepts, literature and arguments across the four dimensions and theoretical
traditions. Part Three thus will extend the students’ repertoire of concepts and arguments from the different
traditions. It will also raise the possibility that, as we move across these four traditions, and particularly as
we construct ‘process’ theories that systematically entail all four traditions, we are moving towards an
‘evolutionary learning’ theory of politics. Such a theory may draw on the strengths of each tradition while
also generating a broadly encompassing multi-theoretic evolutionary paradigm that better addresses
political phenomena than any of the separate theories can alone.
The two core parts of the course divide into two distinct temporal periods. Part Two takes the course
through February – at which point we will participate in UF’s Spring Break, so that there is no class on
March 5th. Part Three begins with March 12th following Spring Break takes up the remainder of the course.
As discussed more fully below in Class Assignments, the central graded requirement of the course will be
two original papers which together focus on the development of a Political Theory relevant to the student’s
scholarly interests. During Part Two students are asked to develop an initial Theory I paper presenting an
empirical puzzle that intrigues them, a set of initial theoretical perspectives and arguments about the puzzle
that they might pursue, some ideas about how to develop those arguments more fully and systematically,
and some strategies for testing the arguments. A draft statement on your paper is to be emailed to
Professor Dodd and all other students in the class on Sunday March 10th. We will discuss these draft
statements during the class on Tuesday March 12th, and/or at a class potluck at Professor Dodd’s
house that week. The final Theory I paper is to be emailed to Professor Dodd and entire Class by
Midnight Sunday, March 17th. We will discuss these final Theory I papers in class on Tuesday,
March 19th, or at a potluck dinner, or both. Three students (the tor-mentors) will be assigned to write
critiques for each paper to be finished by Midnight, Monday, March 18 th. In Tuesday’s class
students will briefly summarize their papers and then the class will discuss the paper, led by the
three mentor/tor-mentors who will provide useful critiques for future development of the paper.
During the remainder of Part Three we will again look at the four theoretical traditions/perspectives. This
time we focus more extensively on innovations in social choice, social structure, social learning and sociocultural evolution perspectives, particularly as generated by the explicit addition of a social psychological
perspective on politics. In light of these developments, students will be encouraged to adjust and adapt their
theoretical arguments developed in Theory Paper I to incorporate such innovations, where appropriate. At
the end of Part Three, in Week Sixteen, students will make a second set of short presentations on the
development of their individual theories. Students will send Professor Dodd and class members a draft
copy of Theory II on Sunday night before this last class. Again, three students will be assigned to critique
each paper via email. It is possible that a potluck dinner/class discussion will be held at this point at
Professor Dodd’s house, instead of during Week Ten, so that students can discuss at some depth their
Theory II papers. If we do so, we probably will meet during the normal class time to discuss some papers
and then at Professor Dodd’s house to discuss the remaining papers. Final Theory II papers will be due at
the end of Finals week.
This organizational design of the course, it must be stressed, only provides us an initial starting structure for
the course, with the instructor reserving the right to alter the design as may prove necessary during the
course. In particular, since the course is designed for advanced doctoral students, each of whom has special
needs and concerns, to some extent the professor will subject the course, as well as the students, to a week
4
by week ‘trial and error’ assessment of how the learning process is proceeding. If intervention and
alteration in the course is needed, he will take it. In particular, he reserves to add additional reading (or
remove certain readings) if that should prove necessary. Along the way, as the course proceeds, he will
welcome student input, and will seek to shape assignments and course structure in ways that reflect student
interests, insights and needs. It is hoped that by the end of the course students will feel less ‘daunted’ by
empirical theory, more assured of their own ability to engage in theorizing, and somewhat settled into
general paths of theoretical exploration and discovery in their own selected areas of empirical analysis. A
test of goal accomplishment will be the ability to complete the final paper in a way that presents an
interesting theoretical argument about some puzzle central to the students’ interests and doctoral
dissertation research areas and identifies a research strategy for probing the plausibility of the argument.
Most fundamentally, students entering the course must trust the professor to guide them through a process
of learning to ‘do theory’ as best he can, however indirect and erratic that process may appear. I have
learned to do theory by reading widely across disciplines so as to get a ‘feel’ for the theoretical process; by
reading about theory and theorizing in the natural and biological sciences, as well as in the social sciences;
by exploring in depth several contrasting theoretical traditions within the social sciences and political
science; and by getting my feet wet through personal efforts at theorizing and empirical theory-testing. The
course will introduce students to the range of experiences and literatures that I have embraced in the hope
that out of this process, and each in his or her own unique way, students will gain some leverage on the
process of doing empirical theory. In the end, therefore, this course must be seen not as the ‘last word’ on
empirical theory but simply as an opening probe, with each student responsible for moving beyond the
course in response to his or her own reactions to and assessments of the course material. The long term test
of this course comes in the extent to which students ‘become theorists’, each true to his or her own voice
and vision of politics.
The Questions of the Course: What does it mean to think as a social choice theorist, a social structure
theorist, a social learning theorist or a social evolution theorist? Can these ways of thinking be combined?
Would the separate or combined ways of theorizing be useful to the student’s specific empirical questions
or research puzzle? What sort of argument might the student make about an empirical puzzle if he or she
were operating within each separate theoretical tradition? If one were to combine traditions? How might
such arguments be explored and tested in an empirically compelling manner? If the student’s arguments
prove empirically plausible, what implications might the arguments have for how we better understand
politics in the future? These are the questions of this course.
Paper assignments and Grading Standards:
Weekly Assignments: (a) I will assign each student a special weekly email report to write on a question
about the readings from that week. The reports can be one to two pages single spaced in length and are
intended to aid class discussion of that specific reading and question. These special reports should be
emailed to Professor Dodd and all students to arrive by midnight on the Sunday prior to the Tuesday class.
(b) In addition, all students are asked to write a short response to a common thought question’ in various
weeks; these thought papers can be a page in length – give or take a bit -- and are intended to provide your
initial perspective on the thought question, thereby aiding preparation for class discussions. These thoughtpapers should arrive by 5 pm on the Monday before class on Tuesday. These responses can be written in a
casual, stream of consciousness style, so long as they are comprehensible.
It is vitally important to get the individual special assignments to me and all class participants by Sunday
night. You will have Monday to complete any additional unfinished reading for the Tuesday seminar and to
read all special email assignments from other students. These assignments are ungraded but the completion
of quality assignments will be taken into account by Professor Dodd in determining each student’s final
grade. Tuesday morning can be devoted to preparing for class discussion, aided by reading through the
thought papers emailed Monday afternoon by all students.
Term Paper: Each student is to prepare a term paper on a topic of his or her choice, subject to the
approval by the professor. The purpose of the paper will be to develop an empirical theory designed to
address a puzzle about politics that interests the student and to identify a strategy for testing the puzzle that
5
could be realistically pursued in a convention paper, article, book, and/or doctoral dissertation. These
papers are to be developed in two stages: a first version – Theory Paper I – will be due to Professor Dodd
on Friday, March 15th; a second version – Theory Paper II – will be due to him by email toward the end
of Finals Week for the Spring semester, at a time to be determined in class. The classes of Week Ten and
Week Sixteen will be devoted to discussing students’ development of their papers, and Professor Dodd also
will be available during office hours and by appointment to discuss the development of the papers.
The class grade will be based on the following formula: thirty per cent of the grade will reflect the quality
of the short weekly papers and class presentations; twenty per cent will be based on the first draft of your
class paper; ten percent will be based on your presentation of Theory I and Theory II in class; and forty per
cent will be based on the final draft of the paper, as handed in during Finals Week. Quality of papers will
be judged by their originality, creativity, organization, clarity, systematic development, stylistic/
grammatical appropriateness, intellectual compelling-ness, empirical plausibility/testability, and human
insight. Students will be encouraged/guided to clarify as early as possible in the course the empirical puzzle
or special concern that they want to examine in their Theory I and Theory II papers. Particular weight will
be given to students’ ability to build compelling theoretical arguments across the two papers that are both
(1) intellectually valuable, interesting and persuasive and (2) clearly susceptible to empirical investigation
that is realistic and manageable for a doctoral dissertation project and/or convention paper project.
Some Guidelines in Theorizing: Throughout the course assignments, students should remember that the
key to empirical theory is its parsimony, comprehensibility, reasoned quality, susceptibility to empirical
falsification, supportive evidence or plausibility and real-world applicability. Our search is not for
obtuseness, arcane complexity, or showy and discursive coverage of a vast and dense literature, but for
clarity, for compelling simplicity, for the identification of a core truth that synthesizes apparent complexity
into a comprehensible reality. The ‘core truth’ of your paper hould speak to and make causal sense out of
empirically observable reality. In so far as you wish to make a complex argument, do so by combining
simple concepts and a parsimonious argument/theory into a broader set of inter-linked arguments/theories.
There is no better exemplar of complex yet parsimonious empirical theory than the work of Charles
Darwin. Students thus are encouraged to read Origin of Species, guided in this endeavor by Ernst Mayr’s
book, One Long Argument, and to be attentive to the theory of biological evolution as an example of how a
complex and seemingly inexplicable reality can be subjected to parsimonious empirical explanation
through systematic theorizing. Within contemporary Social Science in the United States, perhaps the
exemplar of systematic theorizing is Anthony Downs’ book, An Economic Theory of Democracy, which
we also read during the semester. In addition, students are encouraged to read widely in the history and
philosophy of science, seeking thereby to better appreciate the nature of scientific inquiry and the role of
empirical theory in it.
We also will study the ways in which empirical or social scientific theory has helped address some ‘big
puzzles,’ in order to illustrate the varied nature and long-term value of empirical theorizing, One kind of
‘big puzzle’ is the capacity of empirical theory to help us address important normative issues, and so one
broad theme of the course will be to understand how empirical theories of politics help with clarify certain
issues of normative democratic theory, such as the conditions that may aid the effective functioning of
participatory democracy, conditions that aid some degree to economic-political equality and well-being,
and conditions that aid effective negotiation, decision-making and policy responsiveness. Another kind of
‘big puzzle’ is how we explain that emergence of the broad features of the modern world and the varied and
contrasting forms of politics and policymaking that characterize it. In particular, how do we understand and
explain the emergence of the modern Euro-centered democratic world and assess the distinctive features of
the nations and policymaking institutions that operate in that world, with special attention to American
Exceptionalism and the U. S. Congress.
We will highlight these big puzzles in Weeks Two and Three and then read relevant literatures that address
these puzzles, along with other work on empirical theory, throughout the semester. These big puzzles, it
should be noted, are of particular relevance to students of American Politics, Comparative Politics, and
Democratic Theory.
6
And one caveat: I do not expect you to build ‘big theories’ about ‘big puzzles’ in your term paper. That can
be a career-long and even multi-generational task. Rather, focus on limited or intermediate puzzles about
some aspect of politics that you can expect to address through theorizing and empirical observation/ testing
in an article, book or dissertation of ‘middle-range’ status. In other words, focus on ‘small wins’, that is, on
relatively simple theories about a delimited puzzle. In so far as you do well in this endeavor, such theories
may grow over time and across generations of scholars into overarching theories that address ‘big puzzles.’
We focus on ‘big puzzles’ in this class to see the long-term value of theory building and to see the ways in
which small puzzles fit together in addressing big puzzles. As you grasp the great payoff that comes with
engaging in theorizing, including how theories can merge to address increasingly important puzzles about
politics, then you better understand just how valuable and exciting ‘theorizing’ can be.
To aid you in your ‘middle range’ theorizing, we look at various ‘building blocks’ of theory, that is,
abstracted concepts and arguments that can be utilized in constructing theoretical arguments to address
specific puzzles. We also will be attentive to the ways in which multiple conceptual lenses can be useful in
addressing a puzzle, as illustrated by close attention to the interplay of foreground theories of individual
and group behavior, background theories focused on social context, connective theories that address shared
ideas and learning processes across foreground and background, and diachronic theories of change. And we
will engage in self-reflective discussion of how best to approach theorizing.
All of this is intended to help you understand the nature of theorizing and develop strategies of theorizing
appropriate to a puzzle about the empirical political world that interests you. But in the end, as Abraham
Kaplan reminds us in The Conduct of Inquiry, each of you is a free and independent agent engaged in an
autonomous act of scientific inquiry, with your own special cognitive style or logic-in-use through which
you discover and craft causal arguments about the empirical nature of the world under study. There is no
simple rule-book detailing the best way, or the necessary way to discover and craft theories that matter,
thereby insuring a successful product. You are ultimately on your own in this endeavor, free to engage
within ethical bounds in whatever creative processes aid you in unlocking your puzzle. In the end, the one
clear requirement is that you transmit your theories and evidence to us in inter-subjective ways that enable
us comprehend them and see their applicability to a mutually observable empirical world.
Required Reading: As to required reading, the books listed below are for sale at local bookstores for use
during the course. Other books and articles will be placed on reserve or made available by xeroxing.
Books: Donald Green and Ian Shapiro, Pathologies of Rational Choice
Riker, The Art of Political Manipulation
William Riker, Liberalism Against Populism
Michael Laver, Private Desires, Political Action
Graham Allison, Essence of Decision
Charles Tilly, Big Structures, Large Processes, Huge Comparisons
Karl Weick, The Social Psychology of Organizing
Karl Weick, Sensemaking
Bryan Jones, Politics and the Architecture of Choice
George Marcus, Russell Neuman and Michael MacCuen, Affective Intelligence and
Political Judgment
Robert Wright, The Moral Animal
Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene
Robin Wright, Nonzero
Jared Diamond, Guns, Germs and Steel
Jared Diamond, Collapse
Josiah Ober, Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens
Josiah Ober, Democracy and Knowledge
Joseph Stiglitz, The Price of Inequality
Larry Bartels, Unequal Democracy
Ronald Ingelhart, Culture Shift (recommended)
7
Leslie Anderson and Lawrence Dodd, Learning Democracy (recommended)
Dodd, Thinking About Congress (recommended)
Code for Reading Assignments:
The reading for this course is necessarily heavy, given the topics it is covering and the advanced nature of
the training it is providing. To guide you as you prioritize the reading, you can utilize the following codes:
***must read closely: required for class
**close reading is recommended, in so far as possible
*read as time permits: for greater depth, during the course or later
no stars: for future reference
To use Electronic Library Reserve:
1. Log into ARes using your Gatorlink username and password. You can access ARes
at http://ares.uflib.ufl.edu, or by clicking Course Reserves on the UF Libraries homepage.
2. Under the Student Tools menu on the left side of the page, select Search Courses.
3. Use the third search option: Search by Course. Search for Course Number POS 6716.
4. The results page should list only this course, POS 6716 Section 5651, Scope &
Epistemology of Political Science. The first column should offer the option to "Add" the
course for immediate access in the future.
5. All readings not included in the course packet are listed here. To sort by author, simply
click the header in the Author column. Clicking on book titles will direct you to the call
number information needed to obtain the book from the main desk on the 2nd floor of
Library West.
6. Clicking on article titles will link you directly to articles available via electronic
databases. If you are on campus, these links will allow you immediate full access to the
articles. If you are off campus, you must first either connect to the UF network via the
VPN client (http://net-services.ufl.edu/provided_services/vpn/anyconnect/) or log in to the library
site using the Off-Campus Access link at http://www.uflib.ufl.edu and search for the journals
and articles yourself.
Seminar Policies:
1. Do not use a cell phone, Blackberry or any other electronic device during class. Turn them off
and put them away. You can use laptops to take notes provided that you follow the no-cell
phone rule.
2. Assignments. The dates for all weekly assignments are provided in the syllabus. Please advise
me in advance if you need to discuss an extension for a paper.
3. Incompletes will not be given for this class. The only exceptions will be for dire and
unavoidable emergencies or special conditions that are discussed with Professor Dodd in
advance. Should a student fail to complete the course, any effort to complete the course
thereafter will be subject to a grade reduction to be determined by Professor Dodd in consultation
with the student.
8
4. Honor Code and Plagiarism: In enrolling as a UF student you have agreed to follow the UF
Honor Code, which includes neither giving nor receiving authorized aid in doing your graded
assignments and final papers. Any student who violates UF’s Honor Code will be referred
immediately to appropriate departmental and University authorities for disciplinary action.
5. Matters of accommodation: I will make every effort to provide for accommodations for students
with disabilities. Please see me at the start of the semester to alert me to issues of
accommodation and we will address them in a discrete manner according to university guidelines.
6. Office Hours: I welcome students coming by office hours to discuss issues with the course or
with their graduate training and career preparation. I make every effort to keep office hours, and
will stay in my office beyond the scheduled hours as long as students are waiting to see me,
insofar as I can given other scheduled events. In addition, I will arrange meetings by appointment
at other times, when necessary. I enjoy talking with students immensely, and value meeting with
you. But do note: I will be traveling to various conferences this semester, and also will be involved
in department and university affairs at times that I cannot easily control, so that students with
pressing issues should take care to arrange with me a time-certain, during office hours or at other
times when I am available, so that I can guarantee attention to their issues. I am also available by
email: ldodd@ufl.edu, and can be reached in emergencies at my home phone: 352 485 1971.
9
Reading Assignments
Week One: Class Organization
Week Two: Introduction: Science, Theory and Empirical Inquiry
Required Reading: Overview Issues:
1. The Nature of Political Theory
***Leslie Thiele, Thinking Politics, Chapter One: “Theory and Vision”
Arnold Brecht, Political Theory: The Foundations of Twentieth-Century Political
Thought. Read:
***Introduction (pages 3-24);
***Chapter 1 (pages 27-38, (remainder recommended);
*Chapter 2 (pp. 73-113; see also pages 520-524);
***Chapter 2 (pp. 113-116)
**Chapter 3 (pp. 121-130).
**Abraham Kaplan, The Conduct of Inquiry (1964 edition),
*Chapter 4, “Experiment”
***Chapter 7 “Models”
***Chapter 8, “Theories”
**Chapter 9, “Explanations” and
**Chapter 10 “Values”
*Evelyn Fox Keller, Refiguring Life: Metaphors of Twentieth-Century Biology,
“Preface” and Part One, “Language and Science”
**Karl Deutsch, The Nerves of Government, Introduction and Chapters 1-5
*Charles Cnudde and Deane Neubauer, eds., Empirical Democratic Theory,
“Introduction” and Chapter 23
2. Examples of Political Theory (Most students will have read some or all of the following
exemplars. Read or review as appropriate).
***Robert Michels, Political Parties, Preface, Ch. 1 and Part Six (all)
*Anthony Downs, An Economic Theory of Democracy, Ch 8.
*Robert Dahl, Polyarchy, Chapters 1-4
*Garrett Hardin, “The Tragedy of the Commons,” Science 162: 1243-1248 (1968)
*Robert Wright, The Moral Animal, ‘Introduction’***
3. Empirical Theory and Normative Inquiry:
Puzzle: Is Participatory Democracy Possible, Sustainable and Desirable? The Case of
Ancient Athenian Democracy
***Josiah Ober, Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens: Rhetoric, Ideology and the
Power of the People
Preface and Chapters 1, 2
***Josiah Ober, Democracy and Knowledge: Innovation and Learning in Classical
Athens, Preface and Chapter 1
Puzzle: Are Some Kinds of Institutions Helpful and Some Kinds of Institutions Hurtful
In Fostering Prosperity versus Poverty in Large Contemporary Nation-States?
**Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson, Why Nations Fail, Preface, Chs 1-3
Puzzle: Do some kinds of negotiating strategies and contexts appear more conducive to
problem resolution than others, from an empirical-theoretic and evidentiary
perspective? How much weight or attention should be give to such perspectives?
***Jane Mansbridge, “Getting to ‘Yes’ in Politics”
10
4. Hints about Theorizing
**Karl Weick, The Social Psychology of Organizing, Chapters 1, 2
James G. March and Johan P. Olsen, Rediscovering Institutions
James G. March and Johan P. Olsen, Democratic Governance
Individual Email Assignments:
1. What constitutes the critical elements of ‘theory’ as articulated by Leslie Paul Thiele, and how
would his formulation apply to ‘empirical theory?’__Jon Perdue (also #7)___
2. What does Brecht see as the tragedy of 20th century political science and how does he purpose
redressing that tragedy? (See Introduction)___Vic Olivieri____
3. What constitutes the scientific method, as presented by Brecht (Chapters I and II), and what role
does ‘inter-subjective transmissibility of knowledge’ play in his understanding of science (pages
113-116)? See also Kaplan, Chapter 4.___Jon Whooley (also #4)_____
4. Is ‘observation’ possible in the study of politics, as discussed by Kaplan (Chapter IV), and are
there factors we must take into account as we seek to engage in ‘observation’ as political
scientists? __Jon Whooley_____
5. What roles do models, theories and explanations play in science, particularly in their relevance to
a science of politics? See Kaplan Chapters 7, 8, and 9, and Deutsch, Intro, 1-5___Stephen (also
#8)____
6. What roles do values play in science, as seen by Brecht (Chapter 3) and Kaplan (Ch10).____LiLi)
7. Of what relevance are metaphors in scientific theory, from Keller’s perspective, and how does that
relate to the study of empirical theory in political science?___Jon Perdue (also #1)____
8. What are the major kinds of ‘empirical theory’ that have been dominant historically, from
the perspective of Karl Deutsch, and how was political inquiry moving beyond those perspectives
by the mid-1960s, with what potential payoffs and pitfalls?__Stephen (also #5)____
9. What is Michel’s primary thesis in Political Parties, his argument, its implications, and his proof?
How compelling do you find this work, a century old now? Why? What are the implications of
your answer for ‘doing empirical theory?___Ross___
10. When thinking about ‘creating a theory,’ what lessons would you draw from Downs’ work on An
Economic Theory of Democracy, as seen in the assigned Chapter? What was the most central
thing or things Downs did to create his theory?___Sarah____
11. When thinking about ‘creating a theory,’ what lessons would you draw from Dahl’s work in
Polyarchy? What were the most central things Dahl did in creating his theory?___Charles____
12. What about Hardin? What was/were the most central thing or things he did?___Mauro___
13. Of what relevance is Darwin and his theory of evolution to social and political theory, from
Wright’s perspective?__Jung Hoon)_____
14. What are Josiah Ober’s overarching scholarly concerns in Mass and Elite and Democracy and
Knowledge, taken together; what role does social scientific (or empirical) theory play in his
endeavor (as he foreshadows it in the assigned chapters); and is his endeavor and use of social
science theory at all relevant to a focus on values and normative inquiry in the study of politics?
From his perspective? From yours? Is his endeavor worthwhile? Why or why not?___Ryan_____
15. What are the varied factors that scholars believe help and hurt the creation of nation-state
prosperity, vs poverty, which factors are truly important from the standpoint of Acemoglu and
Robinson, why? How compelling or wrong-headed do you find their arguments?___Aaron______
16. Outline Jane Mansbridge’s arguments about “negotiation” and assess their standing as empirical
arguments and normative theory. Do you find her effort to increase the profession’s attention to
the study of negotiation a useful one? Why and/or why not? How might her effort be built on and
amplified in future studies of politics?:___David_____
17. Insofar as politics involves organizing, what insights about theorizing about politics might flow
Weick’s observations about theorizing about organizing, as seen in Chapters 1/ 2?__Kevin____.
Thought Question: What is Empirical Theory?: How do you know one when you see one, of what use is
an empirical theory, and why is it called ‘empirical’ theory (or sometimes social scientific theory or
behavioral theory or organizational theory)?
11
Week Three: Multiple Perspectives on Reality
Required and Suggested Reading:
1. Empirical Complexity, Multiple Dimensions and the Varieties of Theory:
**Richard Dawkins, “Preface” to the 1989 edition of The Selfish Gene
Ernst Mayr, “Epilogue: Towards a Science of Science” in The Growth of Biological Thought
***Gregory Bateson, Mind and Nature, Chapter 3, “Multiple Versions of Reality”
**Ernst Mayr, One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern
Evolutionary Thought, Chapters One through Four
2. Political Puzzles and Empirical Theory: Some Illustrations
The first two illustrations below help you grasp the conceptual logic underlying the
course and the relevance of that logic to explanation in the social sciences. The
four additional illustrations serve as introductions to some of the recurring puzzles
addressed in different portions of the class.
a. Puzzle: Explaining the Resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis:
`
***Allison and Zelikow, The Essence of Decision: All
*Breslauer and Tetlock, Learning in U.S. and Soviet Foreign Policy, Ch. 20.
b. Puzzle: Explaining the Republican Revolution:
***Dodd, “Re-Envisioning Congress: Theoretical Perspectives on Congressional
Change” in Congress Reconsidered, 7th or 8th edition; also available as
Chapter 10 in Dodd, Thinking about Congress, on reserve.
c. Puzzle: Explaining the Dynamic Character and Exceptional Nature of American
Politics, as Contrasted with other Contemporary Democratic Nation States
**Seymour Martin Lipset, American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword,
Foreword and “Introduction”
d. Puzzle: Explaining the Eurocentric Nature of the Modern World
**Jared Diamond, Guns, Germs and Steel, Prologue, Chapters 1,2,3
e. Puzzle: Explaining the Collapse and Survival of Societies
**Jared Diamond, Collapse, Prologue (Pages 1-24), Chapter Two
3. Hints about Understanding Interdependent and Interlocked Phenomena, as in Politics
**Karl Weick, The Social Psychology of Organizing, Chapters 3, 4
12
Email Assignments:
Describe Bateson’s argument in “Multiple Versions of the World” and assess its relevance to
empirical theories of politics and then discuss what Dawkins sees as the power of a ‘change in
vision,’ in ‘transfigurative terms,’ for scientific inquiry and how might that perspective apply to
political inquiry __________
2. Very simply, describe Darwin’s argument, as presented by Mayr, and assess the ways in which it
provides multiple perspectives on reality in constructing a theory of evolution_____
3. Describe Allison’s multiple visions or theories of the Cuban Missile Crisis and assess their utility
– separately and together – in explaining the crisis and its resolution._______
4. Describe Dodd’s multiple perspectives on the Republican Revolution and assess their utility –
separately and together – in explaining it.____ ____
5. Return to Jane Mansbridge’s arguments about “negotiation,” briefly outline them again, and
consider how relevant they are to real-world politics, looking at the Cuban Missile Crisis, the
‘Fiscal Cliff,’ and other political phenomena:________
6. Summarize Lipset’s perspective on American Exceptionalism and assess the extent to which the
issue of exceptionalism could be a useful scientific puzzle and susceptible to empirical theoretical
inquiry.____Charles?_____
7. Describe Diamond’s opening perspective on the Eurocentric nature of the modern world and
assess the ways in which multiple theories or vision generate this perspective.____
8. Describe Diamond’s opening perspective on the Collapse and Survival of Societies and assess the
ways in which multiple theories or visions generate this perspective._______
9. Insofar as interdependencies exist among political phenomena, what insights does Weick’s
discussion of interdependencies have for how we might see and theorize about political
interdependencies?_______
10. Insofar as interlocked behaviors exist among political phenomena, what insights does Weick’s
discussion of interlocked behaviors have for how we might see and theorize about such behavior
in politics?_______
1.
Thought Question:
Why are multiple perspectives of politics useful in explaining phenomena and how
might they be useful to your perspective on your puzzle? What do you see as
valuable component parts of such an approach to theoretical inquiry, especially as it
relates to social and political puzzles, and how might such component parts be
manifest in your own puzzle? What are the drawbacks and limits to a multi-theoretic
perspective in empirical theorizing?
13
Part Two: Foundations of Empirical Political Inquiry
Week Four: Social Choice Theory I
1.
Introduction to Rational Choice Analysis
Michael Laver, Private Desires, Political Action, Chaps 1, 2, 8 ***
Green and Shapiro, Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory, Preface, Chap 1, 2***
Fiorina, “Rational Choice, Empirical Contributions, and the Scientific
Enterprise” in Critical Review, Vol 9, # 1-2, Winter-Spring, 1995*
(This is Fiorina’s response to Green and Shapiro)
Paul Krugman, “How Did Economists Get It So Wrong?”, New York Times
Magazine, September 6, 2009.*
2.
Rationality and Arrow’s Paradox
Shepsle and Bonchek, Analyzing Politics, Chapters 1-4***
3.
The Dilemma of Collective Action
Laver, Private Desires, Chapters 3***
Mancur Olson, The Logic of Collective Action, Introduction and Chapters 1,2,6*
Green and Shapiro, Pathologies, Chapter 5***
Poundstone, The Prisoner’s Dilemma, Chapters1, 10, 11, 12, 13* (The entire book
recommended)*
Robert Axelrod, The Evolution of Cooperation, at least the first five chapters*
4.
Political Entrepreneurs, Politicians and Parties
\
Laver, Chapter 4***
Downs, An Economic Theory of Democracy, Chapter 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9 *
Downs, “The Origins of An Economic Theory of Democracy” in Bernard
Grofman, ed., Information, Participation and Choice
Kiewiet and McCubbins, The Logic of Delegation, Chapters Two, Three Four*
5.
Voting and the Logic of Party Competition
Laver, Private Desires, Chapter 5, 6***
Downs, An Economic Theory of Democracy, Chapters 3, 4, 10, 11-14*
Fiorina, Retrospective Voting in American National Elections, Preface and Chaps.
1,9,10*
Sniderman, Brody and Tetlock, Reasoning and Choice
Green and Shapiro, Pathologies, Chapter 7***
6.
Context, Choice and Social Evolution
Diamond, Guns, Germs and Steel, Chapters 4,5,6**
Weick, Chapter Five: “Enactment and Organizing”**
7.
Context, Culture and Individualist vs Collectivist Goal-seeking (is rational choice
peculiarly American?)
Aaron Wildavsky, “Resolved, that Individualism and Egalitarianism be made Compatible
in America: Cultural Roots of Exceptionalism.” in Is America Different? A New Look at
American Exceptionalism, edited by Byron Shafer, Clarendon Press/Oxford.*
14
Email Assignments: To be emailed to all class participants by the morning of class:
1.
What is the general defining nature of Rational Choice theory (Laver, Chs. 1, 2, 8) in
terms of the type of core arguments it makes, particularly as seen in the
foundation works?:_LiLi_
2. What is Arrow’s paradox and its significance for understanding politics?___Mauro
3. What is the Collective Action dilemma and what are the varied ways in which it has
been addressed in political science, including by Olson?__Jon Whooley_
4. Going into more detail, what is the Prisoner’s Dilemma and how has it been addressed
in political science, particularly as seen in the work of Axelrod; how has this
work influenced other disciplines and areas of study, particularly evolutionary
biology? What additional concepts/approaches have grown up from the
discussion of the prisoner’s dilemma? Finally, what does Weick mean by
‘enactment’ and how might it be relevant to our study of collective action,
particularly the prisoner’s
dilemma?_Ryan___
5. What are political entrepreneurs and why are they important? In discussing this,
illustrate the utilitization of the concept by outlining how Downs draws on it in
An Economic Theory of Democracy, and detail his argument in particular in
Chapter 8.__Ross__
6. How does principal/agent theory build on the concept of political entrepreneurship,
and how can it be important in analyzing politics, especially as illustrated by
Kiewiet and McCubbins in their study of political parties? In your political
experience on campus, have your experienced a principal/agent relationship?
What implications might you draw from any such personal experience (or
observations) for the use of p/a theory in political inquiry?__David__
7. Why is it rational to vote, how can a voter cast a rational vote, and what is the
relevance of Fiorina’s ‘retrospective voting model to these issues?__Jung Hoon_
8. What are, and how convincing are, the general issues confronting the foundation
themes of rational choice analysis, from the perspective of Green and Shapiro,
particularly with respect to empirical plausibility and research
applicability? How do you assess the significance of their
arguments?___Stephen___
9. How does the current crisis in economics, with respect to mis-predictions of the
Great Recession as discussed by Krugman, inform a critical understanding of
rational choice?_Vic, Aaron?__
10. Rational choice arguments often appear to assume a high degree of individual
autonomy of action and relatively comparable levels of egalitarian structures
within which individuals operate. Reflecting on Wildavsky’s arguments, are
there reasons to believe that these assumptions are a reflection of a ‘special
quality’ of American political culture, rather than universally applicable
perspectives on individual choice? Could egalitarian individualism serve both as
a foundation of the ‘exceptional nature’ of American society and politics and a
reason that rational choice perspectives on politics have emerged most
extensively in American political science? What is your take on this question,
its implications for understanding American politics, and its broader significance
for the study of politics?__Charles__
11. In what sense are individual or group choice and purposive action relevant to
understanding the evolution of the modern world, as indicated in Chapters 4, 5
and 6 of Diamond’s Guns, Germs and Steel?__Kevin___
Thought Question: Are methodological individualism and the behavior of individuals or groups
relevant to your scholarly puzzle or puzzles and would rational choice analysis be of some potential use in
your development of a theory to address your puzzle?. Elaborate.
15
Week Five: Social Choice Theory II
1.
The Meaning of Social Choice Theory: Beyond Equilibrium Politics
***William H. Riker, “Political Theory and the Art of Heresthetics” in Ada Finifter,
Political Science: The State of the Discipline, 1983***
***Riker, The Art of Political Manipulation, Preface and Conclusion***
***Riker, Liberalism vs. Populism:
a. read Analytical Table of Contents, Chaps 1-5;**
b. read closely pages xi-xii. 1-39, 59-64, 111-113, 115-6, 136***
**Shepsle and Bonchek, Analyzing Politics, Chaps 4 through 6**
2.
Strategic Voting
**Riker, The Art of Political Manipulation, Chaps 7,8,9,11,5,4***
**Riker, Liberalism vs. Populism, Chap 6**
3.
Agenda Control
**Art, Chaps 3,7,12***
**Liberalism vs. Populism, Chap 7**
4.
Manipulation of dimensions
**Art, 1,2,5,6,10,4***
**Liberalism vs Populism, Chaps 8,9**
5.
Riker, Coalition Theory and Equilibrium Politics (His Early Years)
Riker, The Theory of Political Coalitions, Chapters 1,2 ,3, 4***
Dodd, Coalitions in Parliamentary Government, **
Laver, Private Desires, Chapter 7**
Laver and Schofield, Multiparty Government
6.
Forerunners, Extensions and Variations on Social Choice Theory
Robert Michels, Political Parties (original English-language version, 1915), read:
Preface,” Chapter One, and Part VI: “Synthesis: The Oligarchical Tendencies of
Organization” Review or Browse if not read previously
Dodd, Thinking about Congress, Chapter Two: “Congress and the Cycles of Power:”
Chapter Five, “The Cycles of Legislative Change”
Tsebelis, Nested Games, Chaps 1--4**
Edward Carmines and James Stimson, Issue Evolution
7.
Illustrative Puzzles and Social Choice Theory
Ober, Ober, Mass and Elite, chapters 3-7**
Ober, Democracy and Knowledge, Chapters 2, 3**
8. . Critiques of Social Choice Theory
Liberalism vs Populism, Chap 10***
Green and Shapiro, Pathologies, Chapter 8**
Jeffrey Friedman, “Economic Approaches to Politics,” in Critical Review,
Vol 9, #1-2, Winter/Spring, 1995; pages 1-24; also see the other critiques and
discussions in this volume.*
16
17
Email Assignments:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
What is the conflict between liberalism and populism, why does it matter, and how
can it be addressed or resolved?___LiLi___
What is the General Possibility Theorem, why does it exist, and why does it
matter?____David_____
What is the nature and significance of strategic voting, and what are its implications
for empirical theory and research?____Stephen____
What is the nature and significance of agenda control, and what are its implications
for empirical theory and research?____Kevin____
What is the nature and significance of dimension manipulation, and what are its
implications for empirical theory and research?___Jung Hoon__
The “Political Theory and the Art of Heresthetics” Riker discusses some areas that
experience equilibria, in contrast to others that do not. What differentiates the former
from the latter, in your opinion? What are the implications of your answers for
empirical theory and research?__Jon W___
What is Riker’s minimum winning coalition argument, its empirical plausibility and
research applicability? How did Dodd utilize it in Coalitions in Parliamentary
Government, and what are the implications of that analysis for understanding
modern parliamentary democracies? What lessons might one take from these two
works about the building, application and testing of empirical theories of politics?
___Ryan_____
What are nested games, how vital is this concept for studying politics, and what are
its implications for the role of context in political analysis? How might your puzzle
for this semester be visualized as the study of nested games, and with what
significance?___Ross___
Review what Riker means by heresthetics and what Ober sees as the critical
challenges facing Ancient Athens in pursuing participatory democracy as detailed
in Mass and Elite. Then assess how it was that ‘the forms and forums
of communication between mass and elite’ served to address Athens’ capacities to
confront these challenges, as outlined in Chapter 3-7, and consider the implications
of this analysis for the value of Riker’s ‘heresthetics perspective’ on politics. What
might be some implications for contemporary efforts at democracy? For other
topics of interest to you?__Mauro__.
What is Ober’s central puzzle in Democracy and Knowledge, how does competition
matter in his effort to address this puzzle, how do concepts and theories drawn from
contemporary social science help him frame his puzzle and the role of competition
in addressing it, and how interesting, persuasive and significant do you find his
approach and arguments, as seen in Chapters 2 and 3?___Charles___
Thought Question: Take some concept or argument discussed this week and consider how it
might aid you in addressing your puzzle for this semester OR in addressing some other puzzle of
interest to you.
18
Week Six: Social Structure I
1. Hunter-Gatherings, Farmers, and the Evolution of Social Structure
Diamond, Guns, Germs and Steel, Chs 4-10 ***
2. Extractive vs. Inclusive Institutions and the Evolution of Contemporary
Socio-Economic Arrangements
Acemoglu and Robinson, Why Nations Fail, Chapters 4-10***
3. Scale and Social Structure
Dahl and Tufte, Size and Democracy*
Dag Anckar, “Small is Democratic, But Who is Small?” Arts and Social
Sciences Journal, online, January, 2010: google*
Ober, Democracy and Knowledge, Chs 3, 4***
Madison, Federalist Papers #10*
4. Social Cleavages, Political Conflict and Governance
Dahl, The Dilemmas of Pluralist Democracy, Chs 1-4*
(W. Douglas Rae and Michael Taylor, The Analysis of
Political Cleavages also strongly recommended).
Tilly, Big Structures, Large Processes, Huge Comparisons, pp. 129-143***
Dahl, Polyarchy, Ch. 7*
Strongly Recommended: (a) Seymour Martin Lipset and Stein Rokkan,
“Cleavage Structures, Party Systems, and Voter Alignments:
An Introduction.” In Party Systems and Voter Alignments. Ed.
by Lipset and Rokkan, 1967; and (b) Robert Dahl, ed., Political
Oppositions in Western Democracies, Chapters 11, 12, 13
5. Institutions as Structures and Structuring Devices
March and Olsen, Rediscovering Institutions: all *
6. Macro-Institutional Design and Policy Capacity: Variation among Democracies
Weaver and Rockman, Why Institutions Matter*,
Chapter 1 (1-41; Weaver and Rockman)
Chapter 7 (272-301, Gunther and Mughan)
Chapter 8 (302- 344; Lijphart, Rogowski and Weaver)
Chapter 12 (445-461; Weaver and Rockman)
Chapter 13 (462-482; Weaver and Rockman)
Diamond, Collapse, Chapter 9**
7. Power Elites and Pluralist Governance
C. Wright Mills, The Power Elite: Read Chs 1, 2, 3; Skim 4-9;
Read Chs. 10-15*
Dahl, Who Governs? all*
8. Class, Race, Ethnicity and Gender: Perspectives on American Politics
Walton, “Social Class and Inequality,” Chapter Three
19
in Walton, Sociology and Critical Inquiry *
Manley, “The Significance of Class in American History
and Politics,” in Dodd and Jillson, New Perspectives *
Hero, “Two-Tiered Pluralism” in New Perspectives
McDonaugh, “Gender Politics” in New Perspectives *
Skocpol, “The Origins of Social Policy…” in Dodd and
Jillson, Dynamics of American Politics *
V.O. Key, Southern Politics, Introduction
9. Associations, Political Geography and ‘Path Dependencies’
Putnam, Making Democracy Work, Chs. 5 and 6*
10. Inequality and Governance: The Contemporary Period
Dahl, Polyarchy, Chs 4-7*
Samuel Huntington, “Postindustrial Politics: How Benign Will It Be?”
Comparative Politics 6: 163-192.*
Joseph Stiglitz, The Price of Inequality: How Today’s Divided Society
Engangers Our Future, Chapters 1-4**
Bartels, Unequal Democracy, Preface and Chapter 1**
11. Regimes, State Structures and Authority Relations
Przeworski, Democracy and the Market *
12. Varieties of Structural Analysis
`
a. Tilly, Big Structures, Large Processes, Huge Comparisons***
b. Anderson and Dodd, Learning Democracy, Chs 1,2,9*
c. Tsebalis, Nested Games, review Ch 1, read Chs 5-8**
d. Weick, Social Psychology, Chapter 7: Selection and Organizing**
13. Normative Values, Social Structure Analysis and Empirical Theory
“Robert Dahl: Normative Theory, Empirical Research, and Democracy,” Ch. 5 in
Passion, Craft, and Method in Comparative Politics. Edited by Gerardo L. Munck and
Richard Synder, Johns Hopkins Press, 2007.
Email Assignments:
1.
2.
To what extent is the emergence of social structure (a) shaped by deep background
factors such as climate and geography, (b) a product of direct human agency, foresight and
choice, (c) an outgrowth of unseen autocatalytic processes and (d) a result of other factors?
See Diamond, Guns, Germs and Steel: review Chs. 1-3; read Chs. 4-10__Jung Hoon___
To what extent and in what ways might the extractive versus inclusive character of
institutions (Acemoglu and Robinson) shape a society’s long-term prospect for economic
success, what are key concepts and processes that help us understand the casual processes
involved, what kinds of institutions seem particularly critical to the growth and power of
inclusive vs extractive processes, what are the limits of the power of inclusive institutions,
and how compelling do you find the overall argument? What are its implications for the study
of contemporary politics?___Kevin__
20
Outline Dahl and Tufte’s arguments in Size and Democracy and assess how compelling you
find them, in terms of their reasoned nature, empirical plausibility, available empirical
evidence, and personal observation/experience, and consider their utility and implications for
the development of causal theories of politics.__LiLi
4. Outline Ober’s arguments about ‘scale management’ in Chapters 3 and 4 of Democracy and
Knowledge (informed by Chapters 1 and 2 as well), compare/contrast this arguments about
the role that ‘scale’ plays in Madison’s Federalist #10, and consider the implications of the
two works, taken together, for the development of causal theories of politics. Might the two
perspectives, taken together, have implications for the ongoing evolution of contemporary
governance?__Jon W__
5. What are ‘social cleavages’ and in what various ways might they be important in politics?
More generally, what extent and in what ways do socio-political divisions or cleavages have a
‘life of their own’ or a consequential significance that requires political analysts to recognize
and study them as complements to and/or as objects of study separate from and beyond social
choice concerns? How might the existence and role of social cleavages be incorporated into
causal arguments about politics and change? And, if time permits (reflecting on the final two
recommended readings), how does a focus on social cleavages inform our understanding of
20th century European politics?___Ross___
6. Outline the broad arguments developed by March and Olson in Rediscovering Institutions,
consider how their arguments relate to issues of political preference and rationality, and assess
the implications their arguments have for our causal theories of politics. Is there something
distinctive that an institutionalist perspective offers empirical theorists as we seek to solve
puzzles that matter? ___Ryan___
7. How do contemporary nation-state democracies vary in their broad Macro-Institutional
arrangements (Weaver and Rockman), how real and consequential are such macro structural
arrangements for understanding the distinctive politics of nation-states, in what ways to they
seem to affect the differential processes and outcomes of national politics, and how might
they be incorporated into theories about puzzles that matter? _Stephen__
8. What is C. Wright Mills’ argument in The Power Elite (1956), how does the argument it both
inform and deviate from the ‘mainstream’ perspectives on social structure and institutional
governance in political science, and in what ways would it enrich/hinder empirical theories of
politics? Finally, in so far as time permits explore the argument presented by Robert Dahl in
Who Governs? (1961) and consider how his analysis challenges Mills. What distinctive
perspectives on elite analysis, and particularly on political or governmental elites, does Dahl
provide. How might Mills and Dahl be combined to enrich social science inquiry and
empirical theories of politics? ((And for additional perspective, now or in the future, see
Prewitt and Stone, The Ruling Elites (1973))._David_
9. How critical are such social categories as class, ethnicity, race and gender for comprehending
socio-political reality, and in what ways do these concepts qualify, inform or move analysis
beyond reliance on social choice as one’s primary strategy of inquiry? How does critical
attention to history, and to such things as the distribution of classes or races geographically,
help inform our interpretation of their role and significance in politics? _________
10. Why are empirical political scientists concerned about issues of socio-economic inequalities,
as seen for example in Polyarchy by Robert Dahl, in what ways might post-industrialism as a
phenomenon be expected to limit or exacerbate such concerns, and where is the United States
and the world at large situated today with respect to issues of inequality and their implications
for politics, as seen in the works by Stiglitz, The Price of Inequality (2012) and Bartels,
Unequal Democracy (2008). (And, if you are so inclined, address the implications that Ober’s
work on Ancient Athens might have for how we might think about inequality and democratic
politics)__Charles___
11. In what ways have social and political analysts studied “big structures, large processes and
huge comparisons (Tilly)?” Does the study of such structures, processes and comparative
patterns have a useful place in political inquiry? How might empirical political theories
proceed to include these macro forms of analysis – conceptually, methodologically and in
terms of causal arguments? And how might such considerations be complementary to and/or
blended with social choice analysis? Finally, all things considered, what is your assessment of
3.
21
the value of such broad-scale endeavors to political inquiry and long-term analytic foresight?
__Mauro____
12. As seen in Democracy and the Market, how does Przeworski integrate the awareness of social
structure with the analytic strategies of rational choice, what are his major arguments and
contributions as he pursues this inquiry, how valuable is it as an understanding, and how
might it be improved?_________
13. In what ways do Anderson and Dodd combine close attention to the history, social structure
and culture of a ‘single case’ with considerations of general social choice concepts and causal?
arguments in their explanation of the defeat of the ruling Sandinista party in the 1990
Nicaraguan elections and the sustenance of the right/center coalition through the 2001
elections? What are the benefits of such a wedding of these different perspectives and the
drawbacks? How compelling do you find their overall argument? Does this study of a single
case have broader relevance for political inquiry? Explain____
14. As seen in Nested Games, how might an awareness of socio-political structure and the
analytic strategies of social choice be combined in ways that inform and clarify the role of both
in shaping politics and political outcomes? In what ways might Tsebelius’s work be informed
and improved on by a more self-conscious attention to social structure? What are the
implications of ‘nested games’ for the assessment of inter-institutional relations, as between
Congress and the Presidency?_____
Thought Question: Take some concept or argument discussed this week and consider how it might aid
you in addressing your puzzle for this semester OR in addressing some other puzzle of interest to you.
22
Week Seven: Social Learning I
I.
The Idea of Learning in the Social Sciences
Deutsch, The Nerves of Government, Chs. 5-6, 8-10, 14***
Bateson, “Social Planning and the Concept of Deutero-Learning,” in
G. Bateson, Steps to an Ecology of Mind**
G. Hardin, “The Cybernetics of Competition: A biologist’s view of society.”
Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 1963*
Bateson, “The Cybernetics of Self,” 34 Psychiatry 1, also in
G. Bateson, Steps to an Ecology of Mind*
II.
What We Learn/Why It Matters: Some Illustrations
a.
Learning the Modern World
Jared Diamond, Guns, Germs and Steel, Chs. 11-14**
Jared Diamond, Collapse, Chs 7-8, 13**
b.
Ideas, Institutions and Political Change
Robert Lieberman, “Ideas, Institutions, and Political Order: Explaining Change,”
American Political Science Review, 96, #4, Dec. 2002, 697-712.*** (google)
Rogers Smith, “Which Comes First, the Ideas or the Institutions,” unpublished
manuscript, University of Pennsylvaina: google
Acemoglu and Robinson, Why Nations Fail, Chapters11, 12***
c.
Learning and Culture: Beliefs, Identities and Attitudes
Wright, Nonzero, pp 285-297***
Inglehart, Culture Shift, Chs 1,2,13**
Hanson, “Liberalism and the Course of American Social
Welfare Policy,” in Dynamics of American Politics.**
Reviewing a Classic:
Almond and Verba, The Civic Culture, Chs 1,2,3, 6-12*
Barry, Sociologists, Economists and Democracy, Chs 1, 3, 4, 7, 8*
Barrington Moore, Social Origins…, Epilogue*
Pateman, The Disorder of Women: Democracy, Feminism and
Political Theory; Ch 7: The Civic Culture: A Philosophic Critique,
pp. 141-178.
d.
Social Construction, Experience and Self-Correction
Grossback, Peterson and Stimson, Mandate Politics, Preface and Chs 1-3, 6,7;
Remainder strongly recommended**
See also Hershey, “Campaign Learning, Congressional Behavior and Policy
Change,” in Wright, et. al., Congress and Policy Change.
e.
Economic world views, inequalities, ideology and political choice
Stiglitz, The Price of Inequality, Chapters 5-9**
Bartels, Unequal Democracy. Chapters 2-10**
23
III.
Why, When and How We Learn
a.
Socialization, Experience and Observation
Jean Piaget, The Moral Judgment of the Child, Ch 1; and
Pages 174-196; 313-325; 325-406**
Easton/Dennis, Children in the Political System, Chs 1,2,15, 16**
Mansbridge, “Politics as Persuasion,” in Dynamics of
American Politics**
McPherson, Abraham Lincoln and the Second American
Revolution, Chs. 2,3,5,6 *
b. Cognitive Capacity, Anxiety and Learning
Graber, Processing Politics, Ch 2, 3*
Bateson, “The Cybernetics of ‘Self’,” 34 Psychiatry 1, also in
G. Bateson, Steps to an Ecology of Mind.*
Marcus and MacKuen, “Anxiety, Enthusiasm, and the Vote:
The Emotional Underpinnings of Learning and Involvement
During Presidential Campaigns,” APSR 87: 672-85*
c. Structure-induced Learning
Huckfeldt and Beck, Dynamics of American Politics,
Ch. 11: Contexts, Intermediaries and Political Behavior.”*
Cohen, Radicals, Reformers, Reactionaries, Ch. 4*
Review: Putnam, Making Democracy Work, Chs 4, 5
IV.
Towards an Organizational Model of Learning
Argyris and Schon, Organizational Learning II – all ***
Email Assignments:
1.
2.
3.
What are the principle arguments that a cybernetic perspective (Deutsch, Nerves) makes with
regard to the nature of human learning; what are the implications of these arguments for
individuals behavior, political life and governance (i.e., Part I); and in what ways might this
perspective help us understand ways in which individuals, groups and societies cope with and
possibly flourish within a complex, dynamic and interrelated contemporary global civilization
(Tilly, Big Structures)?___Mauro___
How did ‘learning’ play a part in the evolution of the modern Eurocentric world, as described by
Diamond in Chapters 11-14 of Guns, Germs and Steel, and to what extent does his discussion in
Collapse modify or reinforce these arguments, as seen in Chapters 7-8, and 13? Finally, might
similar arguments be useful in explaining a China-centric perspective on the modern
world_LiLi__
Based on your reading of Lieberman, Smith, and Acemoglu-Robinson, what are the limits to
institutional approaches to explaining political phenomena, how might a focus on ideas help
redress these limits, how might ideas plus institutions better explain change, and how might they
also in combination help us understand virtuous verses vicious cycles of change? In sum, how
useful do you see these arguments for addressing interesting puzzles about
politics?__Ross;_Ryan__
24
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Reflecting on Wright, Inglehart, and Hanson, what is “culture”, to what extent may it be seen as a
product of and an influence on human learning, what are the implications of cultural patterns and
culture shift for political beliefs, identities, attitudes and behavior? To what extent can the kinds of
arguments developed by these authors, properly adjusted to Southeast Asian realities, a useful
component and/or a questionable component of your research puzzle? ___Jung Hoon__
What are the central arguments developed by Grossback,Peterson and Stimson, with respect to
social construction, mandate politics, and national governance. What lessons are there to be
learned from their discussion and evidence about the learning processes, overreach and selfcorrective features of politics? Are there ways in which their work can be built on to clarify
important features of contemporary politics?__Stephen___
To what extent and in what general ways are contemporary problems of inequality in our politics
owing to inadequate processes of learning and how might such learning better proceed (Stiglitz,
Bartels)? What are the implications of your analysis for how we study contemporary American
Politics, and might better study it?___Kevin___
What are the core arguments that Piaget develops in The assigned portion of The Moral Judgment
of the Child, what implications do they have for deliberation and problems solving in politics, and
how does Mansfield’s assigned reading this week speak to this concern with respect to
‘persuasion.’ Finally, if time permits, look at McPherson’s book on Abraham Lincoln and
consider the ways in which Lincoln’s metaphorical and rhetorical skills sought foster morallyinformed citizen decision-making while being realistic about human decision capacities. Overall,
what do you see as the implications of these readings and arguments for how we think about and
study politics?___David___.
What is single-loop vs double-loop learning (Organizational Learning II), how do they relate to
deutero-learning (Bateson, “Social Planning,” above); what is the relevance of these and related
concepts to understanding (a) individual/organizational learning, (b)stability-responsiveness-andchange, (c) adaptation and innovation, and (d) the value of ‘intervention.’ Finally, what could be
the value and implications of such a learning perspective for the study of politics (perhaps with
some concrete illustrations/suggestions) ___Jon Whooley; Charles___
Thought Question: Take some concept or argument discussed this week and consider how it might aid
you in addressing your puzzle for this semester OR in addressing some other puzzle of interest to you.
25
Week Eight: Socio-Cultural Evolution I/Empirical Inquiry and Research Designs
I.
Socio-Cultural Evolution:
Wright, Nonzero: pp 3-28***
Weick, Social Psychology of Organizing, Chapter 5, 9***
G. Bateson and M.C. Bateson, Angels’ Fear, Ch 4***
a. Thinking about the long-term
1. Diamond, Guns, Germs and Steel, Ch 14 and Epilogue**
Part IV is recommended as time permits
2. Diamond, Collapse, Prologue, pp 1-24, Ch 2, Chs 14-16**
3. Wright, Nonzero, 3-228*
b. Conceptualizing the Study of Socio-cultural Evolution
1. Bateson and Bateson, Angels’ Fear, Chs 2-4**
2. Tilly, “Social Itineraries,” “Future Social Science,” and “The
Invisible Elbow,” in Tilly, Roads from the Past to the
Future, Chs 1,2, 3.**
2. Weick, The Social Psychology of Organizing, Chs. , 5-9**
3. Hendrick Spruyt, The Sovereign State and Its Competitors: Read
closely the Introduction and Chapters 1-3 and 8-9; read the
others as time permits to grasp the historical evidence.*
II. Thinking about Research: Ideas, Theory, and Empirical Inquiry
a.
Inquiry, Discovery and Justification: Logic-in-use vs Reconstructed
Logic
1. Kaplan, “Methodology,” Ch 1 in Kaplan, The Conduct of
Inquiry***
2. Seymour Martin Lipset, “The Biography of a Research Project:
Union Democracy,” in Hammond, ed., The Craft of Social
Research
b. The Logic of Discovery and Consequent Components of Research
Designs
1. King, Keohane and Verba, Designing Social Inquiry, Ch. 1**
Email Assignments:
1.
How does the logic of evolution explain the emergence of the modern political world
(from the evolution of diseases to that of political systems, as seen in Diamond’s
Guns, Germs and Steel), what kind of abstract model for political evolution is
implicit in this argument, and how can the arguments derived from this logic and
model-building be explored through a science of history, as discussed by Diamond in
his epilogue?___Kevin_____
2. Why do some societies ‘collapse’ whereas others don’t, how do they tend to collapse
(slowly, suddenly, etc), why do societies fail to forestall collapse through good
decision-making (and how does ‘rational choice’ contribute to this?)? Through what
26
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
kinds of research designs and logic can we test and refine these arguments (such as
comparative methods and natural experiments, and how might these research
strategies relate to specific research puzzles on ‘collapse’ relevant to political
inquiry? Finally, what does Diamond suggest that can we learn/are learning from
past human experience with collapse that informs us today, and in what
ways may there be hope that ‘collapse’ can be avoided for the contemporary
world?___Stephen, Jon W___
What does Wright mean by ‘nonzero’, how does is relate to rational choice and yet
move beyond rational choice, and how has the propensity towards ‘nonzero’
generated the core processes that he sees driving socio-cultural evolution and the
emergence of modern civilization. What factors along the way have proven critical to
this emergence? What implications does his argument have for contemporary and
future politics, and the vital topics for political inquiry?___David, Li____
What is the relevance of Chapters 2 through 4 in Angel’s Fear to our efforts to
understand the role of learning and evolution in society and politics? How might
these implications be stated in more analytic and conceptual terms?__Jung Hoon__
Building in particular on Donald Campbell’s evolutionary model of social behavior
(pp 122 – 126 of Social Psychology), Karl Weick develops his own evolutionary
model of social organizing in Chapter Five of Social Psychology. He then elaborates
its separate parts in Chapter 6, 7, and 8 and provides a discussion of its implications
in Chapter 9. Describe and Explain Weick’s overall model of social evolution as a
variant on Campbell, discuss how it works, and assess the ways it serves as an
organizational device for helping us to ‘see’ the evolutionary processes at work in
social organizing. Finally, consider the ways in which Campbell/Weick’s
perspectives on social evolution might help us better understand/explain the
effectiveness of participatory democracy in Ancient Athens, particularly as
developed by Ober in Chapters Three through Seven of Democracy and Knowledge.
___Ryan; Charles___
How might the ideas from Tilly (Big Structures), Deutsch (Nerves of Government),
and Tilly (Roads, Chapters 1-3) mesh together to provide ways to conceptualize
socio-cultural change, and what is the relevance of this way of thinking to political
research, particularly your own?___Mauro_____
What is Spruyt’s argument about the rise of the ‘sovereign state’, detail the general
theory of political evolution that undergirds his arguments, and consider the
relevance of his theory of political evolution to the potentiality of state restructuring
in the 21st century. How might this argument be relevant to your study of separatists
movements?___Ross__
Why does Kaplan emphasize ‘scientific autonomy’ in his discussion of ‘The Logic of
Inquiry’, what does he mean by ‘logic in use’ and ‘reconstructed logic’ in the context
of scientific autonomy, how do discovery and justification relate to these different
logics, what are the general implications of his analysis for ‘the tasks of
methodology’ and particularly for methodology in the social sciences? ________
What do King, Keohane and Verba see as the logic of scientific discovery, what are
the major components of research designs that follow from this logic, and what
themes emerge from this discussion that help one think about the development of
research designs (with respect to the role of theory, explanatory leverage, uncertainty
and rival hypotheses).
Thought Email Question: Very briefly, outline the/a puzzle you are considering for your Theory
I paper and the approach you are considering in addressing it.
27
Week Nine: Spring Break: No Class: Work on Theory I Papers.
Send Professor Dodd and the Class a draft statement about your Theory I paper on
Sunday, March 10th, for use in class discussion on Tuesday, March 12thth. These
statements can be as extensive as you like (constituting the bulk of the paper if you
like) but should at least outline the puzzle you are focused on and the broad arguments of
the theory you are constructing to address the puzzle.
Week Ten: Doing Theory I: Discussing Progress on Theory I Papers
Class on Tuesday, March 12th will focus on discussion of your draft statements
about your Theory I paper. Be prepared to discuss your draft statements with the class.
There will be no assigned reading for class on Tuesday March 19th. Instead, focus on
completing your Theory I paper.
Send Class/Dodd your final Theory I paper by Sunday Midnight, March 17th.
17th . Class Meets a Regular Time on Tuesday, March 19th.
Week Eleven: Assessing Theory I: Discussing the Final Theory I Papers
Dodd will assign three different students (your mentor/tor-mentors) to read each paper in
depth on Monday March 18 and email a critique of it to the author/class/Dodd by
Midnight Monday. All students are urged to read each paper, insofar as possible prior to
class, but are particularly encouraged to read the critiques of each paper in anticipation of
class discussion.
Tuesday’s class will focus on a discussion of each student’s final Theory I paper
and the critiques of it by the three mentor/tor-mentors.
28
Week Twelve: Social Choice III: Expanding and Refining Our Understanding of Choice
Processes
a. Bounded Rationality and Choice
Jonathan Bendor, “Bounded Rationality in Political Science,” manuscript, Center
for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, October 7, 1999.**
Bryan D. Jones, “Bounded Rationality”, Annual Review of Political Science,
1999, 2: 297-321**
Bryan D. Jones, The Architecture of Choice—all( read the first chapter closely,
and then read through the other chapters for major arguments and
illustrations)***
b.
Reasoning, Crisis, Learning and Choice
Marcus, Neuman and MacKuen, Affective Intelligence and Political
Judgment***
George E. Marcus and Michael B. MacKuen, Review: “Anxiety, Enthusiasm,
and the Vote: Emotional Underpinnings of Learning and Involvement
during Presidential Campaigns,” APSR Vol 87, #3, September, 1993, 72685.*
Sniderman, et. al., Reasoning and Choice 1,9*
Dodd, “Congress as Public Mirror,” Thinking about Congress, Chapter One
Only Pages 3 to 6 and Pages 22-29 are required. Remainder optional.**
c. Emotions and Political Leadership: crisis, emotional upheaval and transformation
Carwardine, Lincoln, Chapter One*
Joshua Wolf Shenk, “Lincoln’s Great Depression,” Atlantic Monthly, Oct.,2005.*
Guelzo, Abraham Lincoln, Redeemer President, Chs. 3 and 4**
d.
The Paradox of Temporal Choice
Jones, Re-Conceiving Decision-making in Democratic Politics, Part I**
Jones and Baumgartner, The Politics of Attention, first and last chapters?
e.
Rationality, Social Psychology, Multiple Goals and the Cycles of Choice
Hirschman, Shifting Involvements: all (read the first chapter closely and then
read through the other chapters for the major points and illustrations)**
f.
Rationality, Institutional Governance and the Cycles of Fragmentation and
Recentralization
Dodd, Thinking about Congress: Chapters 2 (“Congress and Quest for Power”
and 5 (“The Cycles of Legislative Change”).**
.
g. Competition, Scale, Knowledge, and Alternative Perspectives on Democratic
Governance
29
Ober, , Democracy and Knowledge, Chapter Two**
Downs, An Economic Theory of Democracy: Chapters 1-9**
Email assignments:
a. What is bounded rationality, according to the somewhat distinct perspectives of
Bendor and Jones, how does it differ from pure ‘substantive’ rational choice analysis
as discussed in Part II of the course by Laver and others, when and where is it most
likely to apply, and what general implications does bounded rationality hold for
political inquiry? How might it inform your study of issues surrounding humanitarian
intervention in contemporary times? __Li Li___
b. What does Jones mean by the adaptive and goal-oriented nature of human behavior
(Architecture, Ch 2), why does he see humans as adaptive actors (Arch., Ch 1), and
what are the implications of his argument for choice theory and political
inquiry?__Stephen___
c. What does Jones mean by the procedural limits on adaptability (Architecture, Ch 3),
disproportionate information processing (Jones, Architecture, 4), and substantive
limits on comprehensive rationality (Architecture, 5), and what are the implications
of his arguments for political inquiry?
Against this backdrop, what is the nature of organizational adaptation according
to Jones (Architecture , Ch 6, 7), and what are the implications of this and his other
arguments for the evolution of institutions and human adaptability in the political
and social world (Architecture, Ch 8,9)?
Finally, what implications might Jones argument hold for your study of how and
why Spanish observers reacted as they did to understanding and interacting with
nature in the New World?___Mauro___
d. What do Marcus, Neuman and MacKuen mean by dual affective subsystems (Ch 4),
why is it important for political science to begin to recognize the existence of these
subsystems within the human brain (Chs 1-3), and what are the implications of these
subsystems for our understanding of human behavior (Chs 4,5), political judgment
(Ch 6) and affective politics (Ch 7)?
What implications does awareness of affective intelligence, combined with
sensitivity to multiple goals and the influence of shifting context, have for altering
dominant ways we think about stability versus change in institutionalized elective
governing institutions such as Congress, as seen in the discussion in Thinking,
Chapter One? What might the broader implications be for the study of politics more
generally, as in the stability versus change of party systems?___Ryan____
e. What implications might a consideration of emotions, affective intelligence, crisis
and personal transformation have for the development of political judgment and
leadership capacities, as seen in the discussions of Lincoln? Might such experiences
occur within the confines of early adulthood and student government experiences and
choices? How so, and how study?__David_____
f. What does Jones mean (Re-Conceiving Decision-making) by the paradox of
temporal political choice, and what are its implications for political inquiry? For the
study of policymaking, as in Congress?__Kevin__
g. What is Hirschman’s argument in Shifting Involvements, what does it mean for the
stability and predictability of citizen agenda preferences and priorities in politics, and
how might it apply to the study of secularism versus religious traditionalism in the
institutionalization of party systems in new Muslim democracies?__Jung Hoon___
h. What is Dodd’s argument about the ways in which legislators’ concern for personal
power interplays with their concern for institutional power, in Chapter 2; and how
30
i.
j.
does Chapter 5 expand this argument, and with what significance for understanding
institutional politics? What are the broader implications of these two essays, taken
together, for Social Choice theories when applied to political governing institutions,
political parties, and the like? How might awareness of these arguments affect how
you proceed with Theory II? Could the arguments across these two papers be adapted
in some way to county or state level party politics?__Charles___
What are the implications of ‘Social Choice III’ for the issues raised about cycling,
collective action, learning and political adaptation in Part II of the course? How
might those implications relate to political science research, particularly in the study
of international relations and related issues of comparative politics, as seen in your
own research interests?___Jon W.___
Ober’s theory of Participatory Democracy (as detailed in Chapter 2) focuses on
small-size city-state units whereas Downs’s theory of Economic Democracy focuses
on large-size nation-state units. In what ways are their theories similar , despite the
differences in size/scale, and in what ways do their theories of democracy differ, as a
result of the role of size (or scale, in Ober’s terms)?
Treating their arguments as being focused on two ends of a continuum (where
the continuum runs from small size/scale democracies as theorized by Ober to large
size/scale democracies as theorized by Downs), how might variation of autonomous
or semi-autonomous political units between small size/scale and large size/scale
affect the kinds of democratic politics we would expect to see emerge in units spread
along the scale?
Might some elements of Ober and some elements of Downs be integrated
together to understand politics along the scale, particularly at the low-medium level
of size (just larger that a city state but smaller that a nation-state, as with Scotland,
Catalonia, or Quebec)?
Might this help one understand the attractiveness of independence by such units
from a larger nation state? Might it also help one understand how politics in the
pursuit of independence and implementation of independence might evolve, in ways
somewhat different from classic studies of the evolution of nation-state democracies
in the contemporary world?
Seen differently, are there features of Ober’s theory of participatory democracy
that might be meshed with features of Downs’s theory of electoral democracy in
ways that help us understand politics in medium range units, particularly including
politics in units seeking or considering independence from larger units?__Ross_____
Thought question: What implications the reading for this week have for your development of
Theory II, including but looking beyond those readings discussed in your email assignment.
Note: Others are encouraged to play with Ryan’s assignment in their thought
question, looking at ways this question might relate to their project.
31
Week Thirteen: Social Structure II
a. Overview
Tilly, “Social Itineraries”, Chapter 1 in Tilly, Roads from the Past to the Future***
Carmines and Huckfeldt, “Political Behavior: An Overview” in Goodin and Klingemann,
The New Handbook of Political Science***
b. Institutional Design, Economic-Cultural Contexts, and the Character of the Polity
Madison, Federalist #10
The Dynamics of American Politics (edited by Dodd and Jillson). Read pp 6-11
The Dynamics of American Politics, Chapters 2 (Steinmo), 3 (Hanson), 7 (Greenberg)
and 8 (Skocpol).
Thinking about Congress, Chapter Three
c. Individualized Access to Information/Knowledge versus Group Influence as
Determinants of Political Behavior and Outcomes
The Dynamics of American Politics, Read pp. 11-15
The Dynamics of American Politics, Chapters 11 (Huckfeldt/Beck) and 12 (Stone)
d. Social Networks as Structures of Socio-Political Influence
Wellman, “Structural Analysis: from method and metaphor to theory and substance.”***
Granovetter, “The Strength of Weak Ties: A Network Theory Revisited,” Sociological
Theory (1983), 201-33.**
Padgett and Ansell, “Robust Action and the Rise of the Medici, 1400-1434,” American
Journal of Sociology, 6 (May 1993), 1259-1319***
Tilly, “Parliamentarization of Popular Contention in Great Britain, 1758-1834,” in
Tilly, Roads from Past to Future***
e. Scale, Socio-Institutional Structuring, and Democracy
Ober, Knowledge and Democracy, Read or Review Chs. 2, 3, 4, 5
In considering the issues of scale in Athens versus
contemporary times, also see pp. 36-7, 84-90, 161-167, 205-08
See also Downs, An Economic Theory of Democracy. Chapters 1-3, 8,
and 11-14 can be particularly useful.
Madison, Federalist #10
Note: at some point I recommend reading Peggy Kohn, Radical Space: Building
the House of the People if issues of the design and use of space intrigue you.
32
Email Assignments:
Assignments for this week are given to four different groups of students. Read the material
relevant to your group assignment, send an email on it, and prepare to discuss it in class
1. In what ways are institutions, culture, economic structure and the polity said to influence
politics, what are the controversies about which of these matter most and least, and how do you
assess the relative value of focusing on these four dimensions of context in developing causal
theories of politics? Why?____Jung Hoon, Kevin___
2. In what ways are Individualized Access to Information/Knowledge (Huckfeldt/Beck) versus
Group Influence (Clarence Stone) said to be key Determinants of Political Behavior and
Outcomes? In what ways might both be valuable versus in what ways/conditions might one be
more useful in causal arguments than the other? Why?___Jon W./Stephen___
3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of seeing ‘networks’ as influential contexts and
causal processes shaping social and political behavior? What do you see as the strength,
weaknesses and utility of such a perspective in building causal theories of politics. And more
specially, how illuminating did you find the application of it by Padgett to the study of the rise of
the Medici? Why?___Charles, David, Ryan___
4. Returning again to the issue of scale (as a kind of background context or social structural
factor), how does Ober envision individuals, groups, teams and networks operating in Athens in
ways that aided small-scale democracy? How would this perspective contrast with Madison’s
vision of the role of factions and institutional design in constructing large-scale democracies
and/or with Downs’ economic theory of large-scale democracy? What things most distinguish
small scale versus large scales visions of democracy in these works, from your perspective, and
with what causal significance for the operation of democracy and theories about democracy?
Finally, imagine political entities as ranging across a scale continuum from small to
moderate to large scale settings. And imagine smaller political entities as nested within larger
scale entities.
In what ways might movement across the scale involve the incorporation and integration
of features of both large and small scale democratic politics (as you discussed it above) at
moderate levels of scale (however you wish to define ‘moderate’ here), and with what kinds of
potentialities, problems, and causal significance?
In what ways might the nesting of smaller entities within larger ones create different
kinds of possibilities for democratic governance, introduce different kinds of causal dynamics
into politics, and the like.
If you are studying an authoritarian setting or an imperial one, feel free to muse over the
ways in which your answers to the above questions related to democratic politics might hhave
implications to your research when properly rephrased: __LiLi, Mauro, Ross___
Thought Question: Discuss the implications the reading for this week have for your
development of Theory II, including but looking beyond those readings discussed in your email
assignment.
33
Week Fourteen: Social Learning II
1. Learning as Sensemaking
Weick, Sensemaking, all***
Dodd, “Making Sense Out of Our Exceptional Senate,” in U.S.
Senate Exceptionalism, edited by Bruce I. Oppenheimer, or in
Thinking about Congress, Chapter 11.*
2. Belief-driven sensemaking
a. Cultural Identities and Individual Goals
Guttman, “Identity and Democracy: A Synthetic Perspective,” and
Calvert, “Identity, Expression and Rational-Choice Theory,” in
Katznelson and Milner, Political Science: State of the Discipline**
b. Individual Psychological Perspectives
Richard Schwartz, Internal Family Systems Therapy, Chs 1, 2,
8***
Gershen Kaufman, Shame, Chapters 3, 7 and 8**
Robert A. Caro, The Years of Lyndon Johnson: The Path to Power,
Vol I(1981), pages 98-201 (pp. 175-196 cover his college student
government years)*
Robert A. Caro, The Years of Lyndon Johnson: The Passage of
Power, Vol II (2012: the fourth volume in his biography of
Johnson). Read at least “Introduction: What the hells’ the
presidency for?”; Chapter 1; Pages 199-208 of Chapter 8; Pages
339 to 354 and 370 to 372 of Chapter 13; Page 536 to 551 in
Chapter 21; and all of Chapter 26. *
See also Doris Kerns, Lyndon B. Johnson and the American
Dream
3. Action driven sensemaking
a. experiential learning
Jack Levy, “Learning and Foreign Policy: Sweeping a
Conceptual Minefield.”
International Organization Vol. 48, No. 2 (Spring, 1994), pp.
279-312: available on JStor
34
b. networks and learning
Tilly, “Parliamentarization of Popular Contention in Great Britain,
1758-1834,” in Tilly, Roads from Past to Future**
4. Making Sense out of a dynamic social world
a. learning as an interaction of ideas, institutions and interests
Heclo, “Ideas, Institutions and Interests,” Ch 16 in Dynamics of American
Politics**
Levine, Chapters Nine and Ten, Popular Voices in Latin American
Catholicism**
b. metarational learning and regime change
Dodd, “Congress, the Presidency and the American Experience,”
Chapter 7 in Thinking**
Dodd, “Political Learning and Political Change,” in Dynamics
of American Politics, particularly pp. 331-335**
McPherson, Abraham Lincoln and the Second American
Revolution, Chs. 2,3,5,6**
Carwardine, “The Power of Public Opinion,” Chapter Two in Lincoln:
Profiles in Power*
Recommended: Wallace, “Revitalization Movements,” American
Anthropologist, Vol 58, 1956
c. learning as codification and knowledge management
Ober, Democracy and Knowledge, Chapters 6, 7
Email Assignments:
a. What is ‘sensemaking’ as a concept, as discussed by Weick in
Chapters 1-3 and 8 of Sensemaking and why would attentiveness to
‘sensemaking’ matter to empirical theories of politics?__Li Li___
b. What is the difference between ‘belief-driven’ and ‘action-driven’
sensemaking, when are these different forms of sensemaking likely to
be relevant, and what is the theoretical significance of the different
forms of sensemaking, as discussed by Weick in Chapters 47?___Charles___
c. How does Dodd use the different forms of sensemaking to compare
and contrast the politics of the U.S. House vs the Senate, how helpful
is his argument in comparing/contrasting the two institutions and
differentiating, and how might the argument be applied to other kinds
of institutional and group settings and puzzles?___Ryan___
35
d. What are the various ways scholars see, understand and study the issue
of identity, as seen in the essays by Guttman and Calvert, and what
implications might identity have for broader issues of political
development and change, including in your own research?__Ross__
e. Describe and assess the arguments of Schwartz and Gershen about the
learning of and the role played by individuals’ interior lives and their
beliefs about ‘themselves in the world,’ including their inner conflicts
and polarized struggles. Assess how these arguments and perspectives
could help make sense out of the actions of powerful leaders such as
Lyndon Johnson, as seen in the sections from Caro assigned for this
week. (Doris Kerns, Lyndon B. Johnson and the American Dream is
also strongly recommended). What implications might such arguments
and awareness have for theories of politics and political change? What
implications might they have for how we study the emergence of
leadership and the ways in which the context in which potential
leaders develop their understandings of self and the world shapes or
complicates the interior lives and self-beliefs of leaders?__David__
f. What is ‘experiential learning’ and how might it inform theories of
politics and political change?___Jon W____
g. How might the emergence of network activity (as seen in Tilly) affect
the changing ways in which individuals, groups and societies
understand and conduct politics?__Kevin__
h. What, according to Heclo, is the interactive effect of ideas, institutions
and interests, and how might new ideas, when pushed by
intermediaries between big structures and everyday life, help generate
transformative learning within such complex and entrenched
institutions as the European Union, and what are the implications of
this process for political inquiry?___Jong Hoon___
i. What, according to Dodd, are the roles of metacrises, metaphors and
metalogue in political change, and how do leaders such as Lincoln
illustrate the role and power of these phenomena, as for example
in the use of metaphors and metalogue in giving focus to revitalization
movements such as the evangelical awakening of the 1850s?_Mauro__
j. In what sense is codification a part of learning and knowledge
processes in Ancient Athens? More broadly, what is Ober’s overall
argument about learning, innovation and knowledge and the ways that
participatory democracy in Athens facilitated them?___Stephen__
36
Week Fifteen: Socio-Cultural Evolution II
1. Knowledge, Scale, Socio-Cultural Evolution, and the American Experience:
Extending and Integrating Downs, Weick and Ober into a Theory of Institutional
Change
Read: Dodd, “Congress in a Downsian World”***
Review: Weick, The Social Psychology of Organizing, Chs. 5-9*
See also: Jones, Reconceiving Decision-Making, Part II*
Review: Downs, An Economic Theory, especially Chapters 1-4, 8**
Review: Ober, Democracy and Knowledge, especially Chapter 7**
2. Looking Forward: Towards a Genetic Perspective on Socio-Political Evolution
a. Foundations: Genes and Human Evolution
Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, Chapters 1-7***
b. Genetic Evolution and Human Socio-Political Relations
Hawkins, The Selfish Gene, Chs. 8-9***
Robert Wright, The Moral Animal, Chs. 1-14***
Note: Remainder of book is highly recommended
c. The Prisoner’s Dilemma and Socio-Political Cooperation
Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, Chapters 10, 12***
Axelrod, The Evolution of Cooperation, at least the first four chapters**
d. Genes and Political Behavior
Marilyn Brewer, 2000. “Superordinate Goals Vs. Superordinate Identity as
Bases of
Cooperation.” In Social Identity Processes, ed., Capozz and Brown.
London: Sage.*
Orbell, John, et. al., 2004. APSR, (March): 1-17***
John Hibbing and John Alford, 2004. “Accepting Authoritative Decisions:
Humans
as Wary Cooperators.” American Journal of Political Science
35(January): 6276.***
Alford, Funk and Hibbing, 2005. “Are Political Orientations Genetically
Transmitted?”
APSR 99 (May): 153-167***
37
e. “Selfishness” and Cooperation: Extensions of Formal and
Evolutionary Analysis
Shepsle and Bonchek, Analyzing Politics, Summary of Part II (Pages 192194) and Chapters 8-10** (Be sure to read Conclusion on pages 295-296)
Wright, Nonzero, ‘Introduction’ and Chs. 1,2***
Email Assignment 1: (for All Students)
Background: “Congress in a Downsian World” is a first and rough draft of my
effort to reformulate Downs’s argument in An Economic Theory of Democracy in
ways more appropriate to American politics, especially the Congress. It was
written before I read Ober, Democracy and Knowledge.
The Assignment: Assess the general argument Dodd develops in the manuscript
and then consider two issues: (1) the way in which the argument speaks to issues
raised by Weick about socio-cultural evolution and (2) the potential ways in
which it could serve as a vehicle for understanding how learning, innovation and
the aggregation of dispersed knowledge occur within the large-scale context of
American politics, fostering long-term issues of regime performance.
Email Assignment 2: (Individual Assignments)
1. What does Weick mean in The Social Psychology of Organizing, Ch.
Six, by ‘enactment’ ‘selection,’ and ‘retention’ and what might they mean, in
simple terms, in the realm of political analysis?_________
2. What does Weick mean by a ‘natural selection model’ of sociocutlural
evolution and what are its broad implications for political analysis, Chs Five and
Nine?________
3. What, according to Jones (Reconceiving, Part II) is the paradox of issue
evolution, how might it be understood as a form of single vs double loop learning,
and might awareness of this paradox inform our understanding of natural
selection, political adaptation, and sociocultural evolution? ______
4. What are genes and gene selfishness, as explicated by Dawkins, and
how does it relate to the role of replicators, the importal coils and survival
machines in his discussion of biological evolution? See Dawkins, The Selfish
Gene, Chapters 1-4; also Wright, The Moral Animal, Introduction and Chapter 1.
__Ross__
5. What explains aggression, how does this relate to Dawkin’s discussion
of ESS (please define), what are the implication s of this discussion both for
species and for the relations within a species, including ‘altruistic’ relations and
general family life? See Dawkins, Chs. 5-7 and Wright, The Moral Animal, Chs.
2-7.____Mauro, Ryan____
6. How does gene selfishness explain generational-based and genderbased conflict, and what are the detailed implications of this explanation for
38
human socio-political relations? See Dawkins, Chs 8,9; and Wright, The Moral
Animal, Chs. 2-7. __Li Li______
7. What is reciprocal altruism’, why does it exist, and what kinds of
general implications does it have for our species? Dawkins, Chapter 10; and
Wright, The Moral Animal, pp 170-191 ___David ____
8..What is Robert Axelrod’s contribution to our understanding of the
implications of reciprocal altruism, as developed in his work on the prisoners
dilemma and cooperation? Dawkins, Ch. 12; Wright, The Moral Animal, Chpater
9; and Axelrod, The Evolution of Cooperation, review all.___Stephen___
9. What are the arguments and evidence in behalf of a relationship
between genes and the political behavior of humans? See the articles by Orbell,
et. al., Hibbings, et. al., and Alford, et. al. ___Kevin_____
10. Might there be broader connections between genetic propensities and
strategies of cooperation, or between genetic propensities and such things as
social contracts, populist agendas, and so forth, as generated by modern social
choice theory. In other words, address the potential interplay between Dawkins,
Wright, Axelrod and the discussions of Riker on Liberalism vs Populism and of
Shepsle/Bonchek, especially as seen in pages 192-194.___Charles____
11. To what extent might gene selfishness and genetic inheritance
paradoxically have constructive implications for human survival, socio-cultural
evolution, and the creation of modern civilization? See Wright, Nonzero,
Introduction and Chapters 1,2.__Jon W; Jung Hoon___
39
Week Sixteen: Discussion of Students’ Theory II Drafts
Working drafts of students’ Theory II papers are due to all students/Dodd by
Midnight on Monday, April 22nd. Each student’s ‘tor-mentors’ should get a
review of their draft to All Class Members/Dodd by Wednesday morning April
24th at 9 am.
A Potluck will be held at Professor Dodd’s farm on Wednesday, April 24th,
starting at 6:30 pm. Students are encouraged to contribute whatever food or
beverages they can. Aaron and Vic are welcomed to attend. Each student will
serve as a mentor/tor-mentor for two students, as assigned by Dodd.
A Potluck will be held at Professor Dodd’s farm on Wednesday, April 24th,
starting at 6:30 pm. Students are encouraged to contribute whatever food or
beverages they can. Aaron and Vic are welcomed to attend.
The potluck will focus on discussion of students’ theory II drafts. Each student
will have two tor-mentors who will lead the discussion of their theory II drafts.
All students are encouraged to participate in discussion of each student’s work.
Theory II Paper due to Dodd by email on May 3rd
The potluck will focus on discussion of students’ theory II drafts. Each student
will have two tor-mentors who will lead the discussion of their theory II drafts.
All students are encouraged to participate in discussion of each student’s work.
Theory II Paper due to Dodd by email on May 3rd?\
40