This course explores the issues and perspectives on power distributions within and between societies, and the social and political conflicts that lead to changes in the allocation of power. The course examines:

• three major schools of thought that theoretically represent the interrelationships between politics, social structures, ideologies and culture;
• political parties as social institutions and the relations between social members and party leaders, so addressing the issues of political regimes of power, rule and authority;
• political participation and the manifestation and regulation of conflict, including the causes of social protests and revolutions;
• studies of political ideologies, citizenship and nation-states.

1. Introduction: aims of the course, and a preliminary investigation of the different approaches to political sociology (Orum Ch1; Robert Dowse and John Hughes (1972), 'The Scope of Political Sociology' in State and Society: A Reader; Rush Ch1; Faulks Ch1; Kourvetaris Introduction)

No seminar

2. Marx and neo-Marxists: the relationship between the economy and polity, and the nature of political struggles (Orum Ch2; Rush Ch2; Faulks Chs2&9; Bottomore Ch4; Kourvetaris Chs1&9; Nash Ch1; Roger King (1986), 'Power' in State and Society: A Reader; Antonio Gramsci (1949), 'Political Forces in 'Organic' Crises' in State and Society: A Reader; Ted Goertzel (1976), ‘Theoretical Models in Political Sociology’ in State and Society: A Reader).

Seminar: C. Wright Mills (1958), 'The Structure of Power in American Society' in Alessandro Pizzorno (ed) (1971) Political Sociology, Penguin, Middlesex.

3. Weber and neo-Weberians: the relationship between the state and society, and the nature of state authority and the welfare state (Orum Ch3; Rush Ch3; Faulks Chs2&9; Kourvetaris Ch2; Nash Ch1; Gaetano Mosca (1896), 'The Political Class' in State and Society: A Reader).

Seminar: Robert Dowse and John Hughes (1972), 'Some Intellectual Foundations of Political Sociology' in Political Sociology, John Wiley, London.

4. Durkheim and Tocqueville, and neo-Consensualists: the civil society and its relation to politics, and the nature of civic practices and rules (Orum Ch4; Rush Chs4&5; Faulks Chs6; Kourvetaris Chs1&9; Nash Ch1; Robert Dahl (1958), 'A Critique of the Ruling Elite Model' in State and Society: A Reader; Robert Dowse and John Hughes (1972), 'Structures of Power in Industrial Society: The Pluralist and Elite Models' in State and Society: A Reader; Ted Goertzel (1976), ‘Theoretical Models in Political Sociology’ in State and Society: A Reader).

Seminar: Robert Dowse and John Hughes (1972), 'Political Culture' in Political Sociology, John Wiley, London.

5. Forms of political regimes: debates on democracy, totalitarianism, and authoritarianism (Orum Ch5; Bottomore Ch1; Nash Ch5; Kourvetaris Chs11&6; Roger King (1986), 'Behaviouralism and the Sociology of Democracy' in State and Society: A Reader).

Seminar: Claus Offe (1985), 'Legitimation Through Majority Rule?' in Disorganised Capitalism: Contemporary Transformations of Work and Politics, Polity Press, Cambridge.

6. Political ideology and opinions: the characteristics and functions of ideology and opinions, and debates about their nature (Rush Ch9&10; Kourvetaris Chs4&5; Orum Ch6; Robert Dowse and John Hughes (1972), 'Political Ideology and Public Opinion' in State and Society: A Reader).

Seminar: Jurgen Habermas (1964), 'The Scientisation of Politics and Public Opinion' in Alessandro Pizzorno (ed) (1971) Political Sociology, Penguin, Middlesex.

7. Citizenship: different perspectives the nature and development of citizenship and the tensions of the state-civil society relationship (Faulks Ch7; Nash Ch4; Claus Offe (1985), 'The Future of the Labour Market' in State and Society: A Reader; Claus Offe (1985), 'Work: The Key Sociological Category?' in State and Society: A Reader).

Seminar: Claus Offe (1985), 'The Political Economy of the Labour Market' in Disorganised Capitalism: Contemporary Transformations of Work and Politics, Polity Press, Cambridge.

8. Test
9. Spring Break: no lecture and seminar.
10. Political parties: an analysis of the nature and formation of political parties, and their development and significance (Orum Ch8; Faulks Ch8; Rush Chs6&7; Bottomore Ch2; Kourvetaris Chs7&8; Roger King (1986), 'Urban Politics' in State and Society: A Reader; Claus Offe (1985), 'Two Logics of Collective Action' in State and Society: A Reader).

Seminar: Claus Offe (1985), 'The Attribution of Public Status to Interest Groups' in Disorganised Capitalism: Contemporary Transformations of Work and Politics, Polity Press, Cambridge.

11. Forms of Political Participation: a discussion of conventional and contentious forms of citizen participation in politics (Orum Ch9; Faulks Ch5; Rush Ch11; Bottomore Ch2; Nash Ch3; Kourvetaris Chs10&12; Alain Touraine (1968), 'The French Student Movement of May 1968' in State and Society: A Reader; Frantz Fanon (1963), 'Spontaneity: Its Strength and Weakness' in State and Society: A Reader; Michael Walzer (1969), 'The Revolution of the Saints' in State and Society: A Reader; Robert Dowse and John Hughes (1972), 'Political Violence' in State and Society: A Reader).

Seminar: Erik Allardt (1970), 'Types of Protests', in Alessandro Pizzorno (ed) (1971) Political Sociology, Penguin, Middlesex.

12. Modern Nation-States: the social construction of the modern nation-state, and its changing form (Orum Ch10; Faulks Chs3&4; Rush Ch12; Nash Ch2)

Seminar: Roger King (1986), 'Interpretations of the Modern Nation-State' in The State in Modern Society, Macmillan, London.

13. To be announced

Seminar: to be announced

14. To be announced

Seminar: to be announced

15. To be announced

Seminar: to be announced

16. To be announced

Seminar: to be announced

17. Revision
18. Examination

Lecturers: Dr Balihar Sanghera and Medina Aitieva

Tel: 66-10-92

Email: balihars@elcat.kg

Teaching Methods: One lecture and one seminar weekly

Tuesdays 9.30-10.50am; Wednesdays 11-12.20pm

Office hour: times to be announced

5 Short reflection essays (400-500 words) throughout the semester

Mid-semester written test

End of semester essay (3,500-5000 words) – due in Week 17

End of semester written examination

Seminar Participation

30% End of semester examination

30% End of semester essay

20% Reflection essays

10% Mid-semester test

10% Seminar and lecture participation

All written assignments must be competed to pass the course. Students who do not complete the assignments on time will have their grades down-graded, or will be dropped from the course. Students are expected to attend all lectures and seminars, to be well prepared, and to have read their readings.

Below you will find our guidelines for evaluating essays and examinations. Please note that these are guidelines. No two essay questions, let alone two essay answers, are the same. In addition, students are expected to improve across their years of study.

Plagiarism is a very serious offence and is considered as cheating under University rules. Plagiarism includes the following:

• Submission of work that is identical or substantially similar for assessment in more than one course, whether in the same department or in other departments.
• Passing off work as yours that is really the work of others (whether other students, text from a web page you have found or from a published source).
• Duplicating sentences or paragraphs from other works in whole or in part without accurate citation of the text being quoted and proper referencing of the source in the bibliography.

In other words, the only time you should use the words of somebody else in your work is in the form of a direct quote. This should be either indented or should clearly be in quotation marks and should include a direct reference immediately after the quote ends (name, date: page number) e.g. (Harvey, 1989: 64). Direct quotes are accepted academic practice but should be used sparingly in your work. The reference from which the quote comes should then appear in your bibliography. e.g.

Harvey, D. (1989) The Condition of Postmodernity, Oxford, Blackwell.

Plagiarism does not include:

• Summarising the arguments of someone else in your own words and citing them as a reference
• Using published academic work to help you develop your own argument

In each case, though, you should still include a reference in your text to the things that you have read at the end of the relevant sentence or paragraph if you are referring directly to their work e.g. (Harvey, 1989).

First offence, minor (a few unconnected sentences). The lecturer will confront the student with the evidence and if an adequate explanation is not forthcoming they will deduct some marks (to be decided by the lecturer but normally up to 10% overall) from the piece of work in question and a note will be put on the student’s file recording they have been caught plagiarising.

First offence, major (substantial plagiarism of more than a few isolated sentences). The lecturer will confront the student with the evidence and if an adequate explanation is not forthcoming the matter will be referred to the Head of Department for action. This will normally result in the piece of work in question being given a mark of zero. A note will be put on the student’s file explaining the actions taken and the reasons for them.

Second or further offence. Once evidence has been presented the matter will be referred to the Head of Department for disciplinary action to be taken under University Rules.

Inadequate work in most relevant aspects, with many very serious weaknesses

• The essay has no introduction and no coherent structure throughout;
• There is no understanding of relevant approaches, the essay is incoherent on major themes and shows no understanding of the question;
• There is no understandable argument or proper synthesis;
• Structure is non-existent, the essay is very short, unclear and wholly lacking in conclusions;
• There is no supporting data, or an entirely inappropriate methodology has been used;
• No bibliography is presented

Inadequate work in most relevant respects, with many very serious weaknesses.

• the essay has a weak introduction, if any, providing little or no frame for the essay as a whole;
• there is little mention or understanding of relevant approaches so that they are presented in a highly restricted and unclear manner and/or with no sense of context;
• the relevant arguments and evidence are scarcely related together, and there is no proper synthesis;
• the essay lacks structure, is too short, is unclear, and conclusions are lacking or inadequate and ungrounded;
• no data, irrelevant data, or otherwise flawed data with inadequate rationales, if any, for data selection and overall methodology (applies where empirical analysis is required);
• the bibliography is non-existent or minimal and/or entirely unclear and inadequately presented.

EITHER generally unsatisfactory, inadequately planned and presented, with no or poor understanding but with some redeeming features. OR properly organised but more or less wholly irrelevant. In the former case, the work would have the following features

• the introduction is very weak, barely providing a frame for the essay as a whole;
• there is some mention of relevant literatures or approaches, but this outline is very patchy, unclear, and/or very inadequately placed in context with the result that the essays reveals little or no knowledge of their significance and fails to engage in critical discussion;
• the relevant arguments and evidence are not properly related together, resulting in an unsystematic approach, significant weaknesses in understanding and rigour, and no attempt at synthesis;
• the essay is poorly organised, with little or no structure, serious weaknesses in clarity, and little or no attempt to draw conclusions;
• limited ability to gather and summarize relevant data and other material or to interpret it (applies where empirical analysis is involved);
• the bibliography is very limited and/or unclear and poorly presented.

Limited work in most relevant respects, with several significant weaknesses.

• the introduction is weak, providing only a limited frame for the essay as a whole;
• some relevant literatures are outlined, but this is limited, patchy, unclear, and/or not adequately contextualised so that, although some major points are brought out, there are significant gaps, misunderstandings, and/or little grasp of detail or subtlety;
• the relevant arguments and evidence are related together in a weak manner and thus the essay conveys neither a critical understanding nor a reasonable synthesis;
• the essay is poorly organised, with a poor balance between context, literatures, discussion, and synthesis but some attempt is made to draw conclusions ;
• there are significant problems with methodology for gathering material and its interpretation (applies where empirical analysis is required);
• the bibliography is limited and/or unclear and poorly presented.

A competent essay that shows understanding of material and presents it satisfactorily. There is a coherent argument throughout and an adequate conclusion. In short, acceptable work in most relevant respects, but with some significant weaknesses.

• the introduction is adequate, providing a reasonable frame for the essay as a whole;
• the major approaches are outlined and adequately contextualised so that the major points are reasonably brought out and interrelated to reveal an adequate grasp of the topic but with a relatively unsystematic approach and some weaknesses in understanding and rigour;
• the relevant arguments and evidence are related together adequately, there is some attempt at synthesis but no originality, and there are some weaknesses in terms of the clarity of argument;
• the essay is adequately organised, achieving some balance between context, literatures, discussion, and synthesis, with broadly satisfactory conclusions;
• weak rationale for gathering data and materials, some problems with actual data and other material collection and its interpretation (where empirical analysis is required)
• the bibliography is adequate, reasonably clear, and well-presented.

Shows a firm grasp of material and contextualises it, has good research and presentation skills, argues well and effectively, is able to criticise and evaluate material convincingly and appropriately. In short, good to very good work in most relevant respects, with few weaknesses.

• the introduction is good, clearly and appropriately framing the essay as a whole;
• the most important literatures are outlined and soundly located in an appropriate context with few serious omissions so that the essay presents a sound critical discussion of the topic based on a good overall grasp of the chosen readings;
• the relevant arguments and evidence are related together in a clear manner that achieves a good overall synthesis without being original;
• the essay is well organised, achieving a good balance between context, literatures, discussion, and synthesis with valid conclusions grounded in evidence;
• generally competent rationale and use of data collection methodology and good use of data, including specialised resources and/or some original data (empirical analysis is required);
• the bibliography is quite extensive and well presented.

Very good understanding of material and contextualises it well; shows facility in the handling of ideas/theories/concepts/data; communicates clearly and effectively; shows insight and perceptiveness, a well-developed critical faculty and good judgment. A fresh and original, unusual or substantial contribution to the debate. Therefore, excellent work in all relevant respects, with only marginal weaknesses.

• the introduction is excellent, clearly and appropriately framing the essay as a whole;
• extensive and relevant readings are identified, outlined and located in an appropriate context with no serious omissions so that the essential points are identified and interrelated in a very good overall grasp of the topic in question and very good command of both the detail and the subtlety of the arguments;
• the relevant arguments and evidence are related together in a clear and critical manner that achieves a convincing overall synthesis, and also reveals elements of originality;
• the essay is very well organised, achieving an excellent balance between context, literatures, discussion, and synthesis, with convincing and well-argued conclusions;
• sound rationale for collecting data and other material, including use of specialised resources and/or gathering of original data; very good use of the data and material (where empirical analysis is required);
• the bibliography is extensive and well-presented.

• A mark in this range is given for an accomplished piece of work that offers a thorough, imaginative or highly original but appropriate answer to the question;
• Reading is demonstrated to be comprehensive and going beyond standard course material, bibliography is comprehensive;
• The essay is written in faultless prose with a convincing argument, structure and synthesis;
• A high degree of originality is shown in argument, methodology or presentation of data;
• The answer is imaginative and offers a novel and effective interpretation of the question;
• In rare cases where an essay makes an original contribution to sociological knowledge and is written to a publishable standard, a recognition of outstanding distinction will be given.

Active participation means that students are ready to articulate and explain their ideas, and listen and respond to others’ ideas.