Here is President Bush’s address to the nation announcing the beginning of military operations in Iraq in 2003. How can we use the framework of the “levels-of-analysis” to understand the Bush administration decision to take military action against the Saddam Hussein regime?
Month: February 2008
Using Powerpoint-type Presentations in Class
The rise in the ubiquity of use of Powerpoint-type (and I use the phrase Powerpoint-type since Powerpoint is but one–although the most popular–type of software used for electronic lecture presentations; I use the Beamer package add-on for the type-setting software LaTeX) presentations has led to a spirited debate in the field of academia. Some argue that the presentations are self-defeating and do not advance any sane pedagogical objective, while others swear by the benefits.
I see both advantages and disadvantages to their use but believe that ultimately, like with most tools, there is no inherent value in the tool itself, but that the value of the tool (for better or worse) comes in its application. Thus, I think that Powerpoint-type lectures can be used to enhance the educational experience and one’s pedagogical objectives. The issue, then, revolves around determining just what the best use of Powerpoint is.
Thankfully, there has been some research on the subject. From the blog “Thinking about College Teaching“, here is a snippet from a post explaining the best use of Powerpoint in classs:
I found a research study that compared student learning for four ways of combining PowerPoint presentations with distribution to students. (I no longer have a citation for that study.) One group of students did not receive any handouts, a second group received complete handouts prior to discussion, a third group received complete handouts after discussion, and a fourth group received skeletal handouts prior to the discussion and complete handouts after the discussion. Learning was greatest in the last group, and that was the model I followed…
…I went through that file and deleted most content except for slide headings. I made that file available to students on the Blackboard site for my course prior to class, and those who wanted it could download it and bring a printed copy to class. After I completed the class discussion, I made the [complete] file available. The most enterprising students brought the outline version to class, took notes on it, and later compared their notes to my complete version. In any case, I did not spend the school’s money to duplicate materials that only some students wanted. Students were satsified with that arrangement when I explained that they would learn the most that way.
This is what I will do for the remainder of the semester. When I am using Powerpoints, which will be about every second or third session, I’ll post the Powerpoint lecture outlines on Blackboard, the post the complete version there after I have completed the lecture. If it takes more than one session to finish a lecture, the completed version will be posted after the lecture has been completed in full.
War and the Process of State-making
As we discussed in class on Thursday, there is a close relationship between the war, the state, and state-making. Thus, violence is at the root of the idea of the modern state, as Weber’s famous definition of the state aptly demonstrates. Norbert Elias suggested that the state-formation process in Europe was “an elimination contest.” In addition, Charles Tilly famously wrote* “war made the state and the state made war.” In a much-read paper** on the topic, Tilly wrote:
What distinguished the violence produced by states from the violence delivered by anyone else? In the long run, enough to make the division between “legitimate” and “illegitimate” force credible. Eventually, the personnel of states purveyed violence on a larger scale, more effectively, more efficiently, with wider assent from their subject populations, and with readier collaboration from neighboring authorities than did the personnel of other organizations. But it took a long time for that series of distinctions to become established. Early in the state-making process, many parties shared the right to use violence, the practice of using it routinely to accomplish their ends, or both at once. The continuum ran from bandits and pirates to kings via tax collectors, regional power holders, and professional soldiers.
The uncertain, elastic line between “legitimate” and “illegitimate” violence appeared in the upper reaches of power. Early in the state-making process, many parties shared the right to use violence, its actual employment, or both at once. The long love-hate affair between aspiring state makers and pirates or bandits illustrates the division. “Behind piracy on the seas acted cities and city-states,” writes Fernand Braudel of the sixteenth century. “Behind banditry, that terrestrial piracy, appeared the continual aid of lords.”‘ In times of war, indeed, the managers of full-fledged states often commissioned privateers, hired sometime bandits to raid their enemies, and encouraged their regular troops to take booty. In royal service, soldiers and sailors were often expected to provide for themselves by preying on the civilian population: commandeering, raping, looting, taking prizes. When demobilized, they commonly continued the same practices, but without the same royal protection; demobilized ships became pirate vessels, demobilized troops bandits.
It also worked the other way: A king’s best source of armed supporters was sometimes the world of outlaws. Robin Hood’s conversion to royal archer may be a myth, but the myth records a practice. The distinctions between “legitimate” and “illegitimate” users of violence came clear only very slowly, in the process during which the state’s armed forces became relatively unified and permanent.
The process of legitimation of state violence came, as Tilly argues above, slowly. What, according to Weber, are the different types of legitimacy that attended to this process?
*Charles Tilly, “Reflections on the History of European State-Making,” in Charles Tilly, ed., The Formation of National States in Western Europe (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press, 1975), p. 42.
**Tilly, Charles. “War Making and State Making as Organized Crime, ” in Evans, Rueschemeyer and Skocpol, ed., Brining the State Back in (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), p.172-173.
***Elias, Norbert. The Civilizing Process (Oxford: Blackwell), 1993.
All you need to know about International Relations–in One Minute?
What grade would you give these college students? Moreover, how would you perform constructivism, or marxism?
Clouds, Clocks, and Sitting at Tables 