Poltical analysis

POLI0062
Topic 1: Behaviorism.
Historical origin: traditional approach
Focus on formal constitutional power of office
E.g. structure of state, electoral provisions, location of sovereignty
Essentially Non-comparative
Largely descriptive, did not aspire to explain
Not ask why they work as they do or what forces shaping them
E.g. historical original and growth of institutions
E.g. legalistic – formal powers of branches of govt.
Characteristics of behaviorism
1. Focus on what can be measured
Empirically accessible things
E.g. behaviors like media, voting
2. Methodological individualism:
3. Quantification: derived from measurable emphasis, formats like survey, statistical analysis
4. Establish generate principles, do not focus on value
5. interdisciplinary
1. organizations
Explaining political behavior
a. Aspects
1. Sociological: context, networks
2. Psychological: personality(particular in leaders),, heuristics
3. Economic: rational actor
b. Example of studies
Dahl: community power study on decisions in three domains (political nomination urban redevelopment, public education) in a city
Almond and Verba: Civic culture – political cultures (parochial, subject, participant, civic) of 5 countries
Lau and Kuan, Wong : political culture of HK Chinese
Critique of behavioralism
1. Encourage some areas of research and ignores other
What can be studied empirically, verified, quantified
Ignore normative questions such as purpose of activity
2. Empirical method influences the conclusions of the research
Pluralist bias
If ignore structure, system, roles… won’t find them
If focus only on individual actor in special decisions, bound to find pluralism
3. Leads to social and psychological determinism
Behaviors CORRELATES with social indicators and personality
Easity transition to CAUSAL statement seeks to identify causal relationship
4. Emphasis on compromise, bargaining and negotiation as the legitimate means of conflict resolution
Focus on process, rule of game and not outcome
All others illegitimate only legitimate change is incremental, emphasis on stability
5. Tendency towards mindless empiricism
Impossible to collect ‘all the facts’
Need to start with a theory so that we know what fact to collect (now accepted by behavioralists)
6. Ignores value
Modern behaviorists
Recognize individual behavior as influenced by contexts(groups membership, media and heuristic) and networks
But argue individuals still exercise considerable exercise
Significance and conclusion
Explanatory theory should make some sort of causal statement
Widely accept that theoretical analysis as starting point for serious empirical enquiry
Topic 2: Institutionalism
Traditional view of institutionalism formal competencies of the govt./political institutions
Focus on focus or constitutional law and the formal operation of the key political institutions
Less emphasis on social behavior or the impact on public policies
Implication: Consider function, law but not people
Development of New institutionalism
March and Olsen: start considering group behavior, as response to behavioralism
Allocation of values and power relationships
Essential variable in political outcome
Context and meaning of interaction among political system

Three New institutionalism

Rational Choice Inst.
Sociological Inst.
Historical Institutionalism
Emphasis
People
Institution
Event
Institution
system of rules and inducements which individuals attempt to maximize utilities norms and formal rules of institutions shape the action of those acting within them
Code of appropriate behavior inherent agenda based on pattern of development, both informal (the way it generally done)and formal (laws, rule sets and institutional interaction)
Importance
solve collective action problems, achieve common goal

creates “frames of meaning” that define who we are and how we act

path dependency, initial decision tie in future decisions
Role of individual
Actors, as utility maximizers , create institutions to address collective action issues

individuals’ identity and preferences are shaped by the institutions interact with institutions strategically, but are not embedded institutions
Notes
E.g. prisoner dilemma, the tragedy of common, principal-agent theory
Merge over a long period of time, change with environment
Changes occur, with paradigm shift, external shocks
As analytical tool
Study of American Congress behavior (trading of vote)
-reduce transaction cost
-solve collection action problem
Isomorphism: institution become alike without being more efficient
(coercive, normative, mimetic)
Diffusion of quality management across country (as practice)
Weakness

Sensitive to change

Topic 3: Rational Choice (Institutional analysis – Tragedy of the Common
Rational choice theory
Not a theory but a perspective, a logic of explanation of phenomena
Application of economic reasoning to understanding of non-market setting
With a set of core propositions
Cf. Other perspective: Sociologist: by culture, Marxist: by class struggle
Rational choice:
E.g. voting behavior: given that influence is minimal, individual will not vote
As framework instead of theory (assumptions)
Controversial, esp. in political science
Core elements of rational choice theory
1. Methodological individualism
INDIVIDUAL make choice and social phenomena is outcome of human choices and action
Understand micro foundation of macro behavior
Discrepancy between individual and macro pattern interested in macro plane and understanding social phenomena, but can only interview individual Challenge: how individual actions generate macro phenomena
E.g. Cultural revolution: understand the incentive and strategy of survival in the situation (try to be more revolutionary to survive)

2. Rationality
Assumption on human purpose human behavior, cost-benefit analysis of alternative possible actions to make choice people are fallible, opportunistic, but is responsive to change in environemnt
Critics: assume too much on people’s rationality
Response: there are different assumption on human cognition
Without making assumption, e.g. assumption of rational choice, there is no predictive power
Herbert Simon: bounded rationality
Different images and mental model
Rational choice does not assume super-rationality, but bounded one

3. Structure of Constraints
Using rationality itself as explanation is not very useful
Maximizing behavior depends on constraints that define the sets of opportunities and incentives faced by the individual
Structure
(1) Context: Put into a context, and use the contextual behavior for explanation
Without it, the structure cannot explain behavior
(2) Incentive: Look at incentive structure, and different types of structures (3)Nature of goods: Nature of physical world, particularly nature of goods, is important constraint
(4)Institutions: rules-in-use that prescribed what is prohibited, permitted or required
Incentive, behavior,etc

4. Emergence
Interactions of individuals can give rise to systemic properties that do not exist, and cannot be comprehended at individual level
Should not assume linear relationship exists between individual and overall performance (may go opposite direction)
E.g. decline of govt. efficiency but civil servants actually work harder
E.g. crazy housing market, rational individual buyers
Common-pool resources
Different good as different level of excludability, commonl
Two features (not only about this reslurce
(1) High cost in excludability: Goods that are very difficult to exclude people from using it
(2) Subtractable yields from the resource
Tragedy of the COmmons E.g. big water basin (non-excludable but subtractable)
E.g. fishery get fish as much as possible unless too late
Irrigation as common-pool sources
Panacea 1: Government authority
Provision problem: Tax money and modern infrastructure,
Appropriation problem: govt. official(authoritative punishment
Difficulty: no full information available
Panacea 2: Market (Water markets)
Internalize cost and benefits: create tradable-water rights
Need for collective action: minimized with low levels of interdependency
Assumption: someone know enough to distribute the right
Panacea 3: Community (Water User Association)
Nature of the problem: involve local information and collection action among farmers
Making use of it: building stronger community help to cope with free-riding problem experience of state intervention have provided strong evidence that self0governance
Going beyond the “best practice traps”
Choice: Market, government intervention, Community? understand what kind of logic is required
Try to understand incentives of people since interactions are dynamic
Example: An innovative intervention in Nepal(6th poorest): WECS/IIMI Intervention (1985)
Aim: test methods for delivering assistance that enhance organizing ability for irrigation and maintenance as irrigation infrastructure improved
Factors: infrastructure improvement, written rules, fines, leadership, collective action
To have good performance….
Infrastructure + (MUST) Good institiutional ules to sustain maintenance not sufficient for long term (complemented by collective action or strict implementation of fine)
Poor institutional rule +a long list to make it successful (substitution of different factors is possible but limited)
If there is no external intervention, must have collective action
Other results
Better infrastructure or institution are necessary but not sufficient
A limit as to the substitution of positive effect of continual infrastructure improvement
Leader as not necessary but sufficient condition (when combined with other) for long-term perofrmance
The Lesson: adopt non-linear thinking (combination and different factor and institution interact) that
Tutorial
Challenges of governing the common
1. Limited information and information cost
2. Tragedy of the common: inefficiency in collection
E.g. Prisoner’s dilemma
3. Asymmetry of interest or contribution
E.g. irrigation – beginning has more water supply
Led to difference in contribution in construction?  need to make sure that everyone give enough contribution and has enough share of benefit
4. Free rider’s problem
Once it was done it will benefit all
Not excludable
E.g. irrigation
Policy panaceas
1. Bureaucratic mode
2. Market approach
Inequalities
E.g. will privatization of landfills go according to social value?
3. (IAD)Self-governance
Work in international arena
E.g. Kyoto Protocol - carbon dioxide emission market
Common ground for mutual interest
4. Socio-ecological system
Identify social and ecological variables and interpolates
Relatively vague
Variables
Different at national level and international level
IAD: emphasis on rules-in-use, difficult to define jurisdiction at international level
Depend on nature of problem and the issue
E.g. national security
Change the setting, rules, but also **culture and habits
Example
E.g. Carbon emission
E.g. Over-fishing
ICCAT: International Commission for Conservation of Atlantic Tuan
Inter-governmental organization for regulation of catching bluefin tuna
Japan: buy “ individual transferable quotas” from other countries
Ultimate resolution: by changing the culture and habit of people
Topic 4: Causation and Interpretation
Scientific explanation (Causation) vs. Interpretation in social sciences
Different approaches to ontology and epistemology
Positivism
The world exists independent of our knowledge and knowledge is from our sense-experience
Natural science and social science are similar
Social phenomena can be measure objectively through observation
Aim of social science: make causal statement (find out causes of behavior)
Assumptions
Human behaviors are governed by law-like regularities
Agents as calculating (rational choice)
Human behaviors conform to loose set of psychological laws and norms
Behavioral regularities:
(1) Psychological laws regularities
Felt risk = hazard +outrage
E.g. terrorist attacks(felt vs. heart disease (higher death rate)
(2) Social norms regularities
Social explanations are probabilistic rather than deterministic
What is probable: less likely or more likely
Models of Explanation (D.Little)
C is a cause of E when (P.14)
1. Causal mechanism
A theory of the lower-level process that implements causation
A series of events leader from C to E, the transition from one event to the next is governed by one of more laws
2. Inductive regularity
A regular association between C-type events and E-type events
E.g. Alternative explanation 1: the higher one’s education level, the more likely he will vote
Relations could be with intervening variation or spurious relation
E.g. the higher the number of storks, the higher the birth rate (Reason: more of both in rural area)
3. Necessary & sufficient condition
Stringent requirement
Inductive regularity model Patterns of association between independent and dependent variables
Association (correlation) = causality? No
Statistical analyses are frequently employed
Establishing causality: 4 Steps
(1) Demonstrate correlation between idependent variable and dependent variable
(2) Elimination of alternative hypotheses
(3) Proof of temporal order
(4) Provision of causal mechanisms
Relations could be with intervening variable or common cause
E.g. Robert Putnam “Bowling alone”
Statistical association is NOT causal mechanism
Causes of social capital decline in US
Civil disengagement: Public meeting, church, volunteers , club meeting, etc
E.g. use the 4 steps to evaluation
Interpretation
What is interpretation?
Compare rational choice and interpretation(IT)
Both focus on human agency: choice, belief, reasoning, action
Rational choice: thinner and abstract perspective on agency
Interpretation involves the context, the state of mind of individual, taking into account the worldviews, values
Meaning of interpretation and significance
(1) To discover meaning or significance of actions for the agent
(2) Involves description of cultural context and state of mind of the agent
(3) Diversity across cultures
(4) Practices are constituted by meanings participants attributed to them
Features
(1) NOT to find casual regularities or offer general causal explanations
(2) Hermeneutic: treats social phenomena as a text to be decoded through IMAGINATIVE reconstruction of the significance of various elemetns
Interpretation vs. Causal Explanation:
1. Always interpretation, no law-like regularity or causal explanation
2. Social phenomena best understood through interpretation
3. Help to arrive useful hypothesis for testing
Tutorial
1. Major differences between scientific explanation and interpretive approach

Scientific explanation
Interpretative approach
Adoption
Natural science
Social science
Focus
Explanation
Deductive
Inductive statistical
Understanding practice as expressive of human meanings

Distinctive focus
Objective causal process
Meaningful actions and practices

Solve the problem
Concern with psychological and intellectual phenomena in understanding
Goal

Explanatory understanding: arrive at a hypothesis about the agent’s state of mind in performing a given action
Method

(Max Weber) no distinctive method of interpretation
Criteria to judge

Coherence
Other characteristic
Value-free

Probability of causal relationship

More deterministic (clear goal)
Vague description

Limited causal relation between the event

“Thick” description, more room for imagination

Generalization
Cultural-specific: put into cultural context(Danger: internalize system)
Empirical support
Quantitative: hard data
Qualitative: focus group, interview
Strength

Provide a framework for interpreting repetitive behavior (e.g. ritual)
Weakness

Possible biase
Comparison with others

Rational choice: both on understanding of human agency like choice belief, reasoning

Topic 6: Cultural Approach
Traditional understanding of Political Culture
1. Political culture as residual category(Misunderstanding)
Political culture was neither an independent variable nor was it a dependent variable
E.g. men are more likely to vote than women
Cannot just say that the difference is due to “culture” but not study it
An ad hoc category included only when all independent variables fail
2. Culture as Psyche
Political culture “includes barely articulated sentiments as well as the foundations of well-defined ideologies”
L.Pye (1987)
Observation: Chinese tend to take issue-based criticism personal
Explanation: everyone has a dark side (Freudian), and too much repression will lead to emotional outburst
3. Culture as attitudes/values
(1) Almond and Verba: The Civic Culture
Political culture not as psyche, but “political orientations” consists of “attitudes” of the individual towards the government and the system
Political culture understand as attitudes and perceptions
Values are operational and can be depicted in questionnaire surveys
Awareness of politics, feeling toward govt. and politics and sense of political efficacy
(2) Inglehart’s theory of most-materialism and the silent revolution
Environment, creativity, etc become more important
Common Issues of Traditional Political Cultural Approach
A. Overly idealistic (reductionist)
Tendency to relegate explanation of behavior to only cultural variables (e.g. culture as psyche)
A rather justified criticism
B. Overly conservative
Functional orientation pre occupying with social integration
What is the culture viable to maintain a stable democracy
L.Pye, Almond and Verba, R.H Soloman: Neglects conflict and change (e.g. maintenance of a stable democracy, childhood socialization)
Note*: culture is not inherently conservative, just the focus of these researchers
C. Overly narrow understanding of culture
Culture understood in uni-dimensional way as attitude, human psyche or values
Omitted important constituents of culture: languages, symbols, myths, rituals
The Symbolic Approach
1. Broad definition of culture
Geertz (1973): webs of significance
Swidler (1986): “tool kit” of habits, skills and styles from which people construct strategies of action
E.g. Confucianism: define how father and son should behave what is “appropriate behavior”
Kertzer (1996): “politics is symbolic, because both the formation of human groupings and the hierarchies that spring from them depend on symbolic activity”

2. Major components of symbolic systems
(1) Symbols
Function
(1) Crystaliza identity and create bonds among members
(2) Mobilize members to certain action
(3) Personify/objectify the group
(4) Legitimize authority
Some sacred in nature and command collective reverence
E.g. national flag and HKSAR flag – the former with bigger size and higher position
E.g. Gadhi- Civil disobedience, decolonization, autonomy
(2) Rituals
Definition: Socially accepted symbolic behavior that occurs repeatedly
E.g. UK: state’s opening of the parliament
Functions
(1) Symbolic representation of the org.
(2) Provide legitimacy
(3) Build solidarity without consensus (understand and accept the identity of British despite disagreement later on)
(4) Foster a particular worldview (both monarchy as symbolic head and democracy)
(3) Myths
Common myths and memories defining features of nationhood and national identity
Some serve specific political purpose,e e.g. remind community virtues of ancestors
E.g. Washington and the Cherry tree

(4) Language/education
Create a sense of we-ness
Instills a common set of values and worldviews among members
Culture as a symbolic process
Analyze as a a symbolic process, that involve struggle between different forces to give meanings to symbols accounted for social and political context
1. Example 1: Transformation of Italian Communist Party in 1989-1991 (history in communist struggle, party identity)
2. Example 2: study of nationalism and national identity by ethno-symbolic approach
Basic themes of ethno-symbolism
a. Ethnic basis of nations idenitfying name
Myth of common ancestry
Shared historical traditions
Elements of common culture
Link of solidarity, at least among elite
b. Cultural components of ethnic ommunities: cultural and symbolic components have important unifying role
c. Ethnic myths and symbols
Muths of origin and descent
Symbols of territory and community
Major concern: susceptibility of symbolic system to manipulation: “Political veils”
1. Political veils
Political veil: block a person’s direct perception of an objects
Usage
Not wedded to any particular content
Liberal democracy, can serve to highlight core liberal democratic value
2. Purposes
(1) To hide, distort or misrepresent
(2) To enhance perception of object by revealing its most attractive features
3. Tesnsion between veils and liberalism
Veil circumvent rational faculties by playing more to emotions, habits and intuition than to reason
Could threaten autonomy and self-determination
In extreme case, they are employed in a way that resist efforts to see through those veils fundamentally at odds with liberalism
4. 3 criteria to justify the use of veils
(1) Content
Cannot be used to erode liberty, freedom and equality
Autonomy requires veils to match target population’s own culture and tradition
(2) Translucency
Must be possible for interested citizens to penetrate the veil
(3) Consent
Veil must reflect consent of target population
2 sufficient conditions to obtain consent
a) Actual justification: veil as actual product of some democratic process
b) Hypothetical justification: would have been accepted by citizens if they have the appropriate information and had the time, energy and intelligence to make reasonable judgment about it
Tutorial
Shortcoming of cultural appraoch
Lack clarification of hypothesis, causation problem
Focus on individuality
Subjective bias and value (Cf: culture vacuum)
Conception problem of culture: what culture? What is the boundary of culture?
Difficult to make comparison and verify
E.g. Almond and Verba (Universiality, bias of democratic value
Barriers for govt. to mould the symbolic system arbitrarily in his favor
(1) Encoding and decoding
(2) Time-frame consideration: long-term? Short-term?
(3) Tension between the moulding and the people’s will (media, general public)
(4) Established tradition (Cf: revolutionary change – easier to change? Or always difficult?) by re-interpretation (e.g. Confuscianism)
E.g. national education in Hong Kong
Topic 7: Constructivism

A. Introduction
a. Different approaches
(1) Idealism/utopianism: International law and organization, morality
(2) Liberalism: institution, independence
(3) Realism (*Important): “power”, dominant approach, esp. after WWII
(4) Constructivism: Ideas like “value”, “identity”, “rule”
b. CAUSAL explanation
All these perspective intend to find the primary cause of an outcome
Difference lies in which factor is more important in causing outcome

B. Realism
a. Historical background: dominance after WWII
Failure of League of Nations in 1930s (In response to Wilson’s 40 points to keep peace)
b. Central idea
State behavior explained in terms of country’s relative position in the international distribution of POWER
National interest is identified with national survival
c. View of Causality: Power affects international law, idea and institution and the three of them affect each other
d. Major assumptions
Nation-states as key actors
States are unitary and rational
Power is key concept to explain and predict behavior
Sovereign states have gradations of capabilities
International politics is anarchical and conflictual
self-help system, low level of trust national security(high politics) usually tops the list within hierarchy of international issues, local issues as “low politics”

e. Neo-realism
Rationale: Structure of the system, notably number of actors and their capabilities shapes the patterns of interaction
Focus: Arrangement of the parts of the international system with respect to each other
Waltz introduced a systemic approach to study of international relations
System(structure) level of analysis vs. unit(state) level of analysis
Unit-level force (nation system), are said to shape the possibilities for systemic change
Significance: defines key realist more clearly and consistently
Waltz defines power as how states score on
(1) size of population & territory,
(2) resource endowment(e.g. uranium, rare earth),
(3) economic capability,
(4) military strength,
(5) political stability & competence (less measurable
Emphasizes importance of the structure of system and how this influences and constrains state behaviors
Power affects behavior
E.g. Bi-polar system during Cold War Uni-polar system or multi-polar system now
E.g. states with nuclear weapons in 2011 (estimated no. of warhead): US, Russia, have 2400 UK and France and China has a few North Korea (currently 12) currently

C. Constructivism
a. Challegne to realism emphasizes ideas over power
Challenge to the realist perspective
“anarchy is what states make of it” vs realist’s thinking that states is what is naturally created
Understand the world as socially constructed concepts
b. Central idea
State behavior can be explained by “ideas”, e.g. use of power, cooperation with other states
E.g. 1963 President JF.Kennedy gave the speech in Berlin of “You are a free man”
Forms of “idea”: values, norms, beliefs and identities
Instead of power, idea act as what influence international law, power and institution
State identities determine whether countries see each other as friends or foes  whether relative power differences between countries are threatening or not
E.g. Controversy over “Old Europe”

c. Major assumption
Principal units of analysis: nation-states, but key structures are socially constructed
Anarchy: a condition of rule among rule in which no one state or group of states rules over the rest.
With order (Cf: state always fighting against each other in realism)
State of national interest: defined according to social identities of actors

Cause of international behavior: a particular set of beliefs/ideas shared within and among national states and other groups
”intersubjective consensus” (takes a long time and explained by cognitive evolution)
Existence of cognitive evolution
Dramatic change in shared beliefs about political practice is possible
Three dimensions: Innovation, selection and diffusion
(1) Innovation: creation of new value and expectations that are accepted by a group
(2) Selection: the extent to which values and expectations become embedded in the minds of the group
(3) Diffusion: the degree which new values and expectations spread from one group of state to another
Takes a long time , E.g. R2P: responsibility to protect – commonly accepted just two years ago , after 2 decades of Lowanda Genocide

d. Nye’s concept of “soft power”
Widely adopted approach in constructivist perspective
Note: Not every country has “soft power”
Soft power of a country rests primarily on 3 resources
(1) Culture: in places where it is attractive to others
(2) Political values: hen a country lives up to them at home and abroad
(3) Foreign policies: when seen as legitimate and having moral authority

e. Difference between constructivism and realism
(1) Difference in reasoning
Realism: causal reasoning X causes Y
Constructivism: constitutive reasoning: X and Y constitute or mutually cause each other
(2) Difference in aims
Realism: rational calculation, intends to predict specific outcomes by a logic of consequences
Constructivism: : explain and interpret by a logic of appropriateness

f. Level of Analysis
Perspectives: highlight causes of events
e.g. Cold War cause JF Kennedy to give a speech in Berlin)
Levels of analysis: highlights levels or sources these causes come from
3 levels of analysis
(1) Systemic level: explain outcomes from the positioning and interaction of states in the international system
(2) Domestic level: locating causes in the character of domestic system of a specific state
(3) Individual level
Locate cause of events in individual leaders or immediate circle of decision makers within a particular country

D. Case study
1. Case 1: End of the Cold War
a. Realist perspective
US revived
Individual level: Reagan devised strategy to exploit Soviet weaknesses by initiated the Star War
b. Constructivist
May not find explanation in all three level, but it will provide a direction
Systemic level: West won Cold War through systemic structural competition of ideas (capitalism and democracy’s victory)
Individual level: Marxist-Leninist ideology faded away and replaced by new thinking.

2. Case 2: Globalization
a. Realism
US became sole superpower
State’s powers are diminished, now one actor competing with many others
b. Constructivist
Battle of economic ideas
Market-oriented ideas in Washington Consensus vs. rivals like Beijing Consensus
Reflective of movement in ideas about what states are
No mere material structure that constrains state behavior

E. Conclusions
a. Realism
“Hard”
scientific, Cost-benefit calculations
Conceptualization and measurement of power
b. Constructivism
“soft”: perception and understanding
c. Analytical framework
Perspectives and levels of analysis can be combined in any pairing

Individual level
Domestic level
Systemic Level
Constructivism

Realism

Tutorial
Q1: Strength and weakness of constructivism
1. Characteristics
No assumption of confrontation,
“ideas”, norms and identity
Social interaction
2. Strength
Explain changes in identity and interests
3. Weakness
Cannot tell concrete reason for the change of norms
Analysis from interaction: does that interaction really the intention of the state?
4. Contrast with realist
Realist: states always act for state survival, national interest(cost-benefit
Precise, but too simplistic?
Constructivist: state has a hidden agenda behind
Is it what they really want to do?

Q2: Emergence of international norms
More secure and more identified with international community, more likely to adhere to international norm (Amy Guowitz)
3 stages of norm emergence (Finnemore)
Legitimacy, prominence, relationship with existing norms
Entrepreneurs: can both be individuals and organizations, including international ones
Actors: International organizations, NGO, individuals(elites), Courts, State
Court: e.g. corporal punishment banned by European Court of Human Rights
Media: spread norms
State
Norm tipping (Finnemore)
Finnemore: norm tipping (unless one-third of the total state adopt the norm)
Is it possible without backup of powerful states?
Neo-liberalism leaders: Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher

Topic 8: Critical theory and deliberate political analysis
Critical theory
Purpose: disclosure of structures that oppress
By critiquing these structures, we can change the structures and the consequences that stem
Critique in the critical theory sense is “disclosure” or radical disclosure
Dimensions
constructive or destructive pro-modernity or anti-modernity liberationist or defeatist
Roots in later Marxism, notably Frankfurt school
The Marxist economic project is defunct but the project of exposing the superstructure for the purpose of liberation is not
Superstructure is more than economic, it’s cultural, political, and linguistic
E.g. linguistics “he” refer to both male and female
Critical theory or theories
E.g. Oppression by iPhone, Facebook, research-led education
Agree upon discourse, equal awakening
E.g. occupy wall street
Constructive: why oppressive
Destructure: there is no way that you(police) can understand
E.g. exclusionary language of law: vested interest in the oppressive form of society

Destructive
(Horkheimer and Adorno)
Constructive
(Habermas)
Instrumental rationality
(means-ends)
dominates politics via economics, culture vs. mainstream “economically viable production”
Might oppress, but it is not inevitable that it must
Modernity
Instrumental modernity oppresses true humanity
Communicative rationality is a “way out” of oppressive modernity
Popular area
Popular culture oppresses while it programs

Popular politics oppresses when it is dominated by experts and unreflective group conflict
Root of problem
Culture is a superstructural industry restricting genuine artistic expression
Root of liberation lies in communication
Attitude to oppressive structure Trapped by oppressive structures of modernity which we must rip down through critique, violence
Oppressive structures of modernity can be overcome through critical communication
Attitude to man and modernity
Pessimistic about man and modernity making a change is impossible since everyone want to keep their status quo
Optimistic about man and modernity
Attitude of critique
Critique is the only liberation
Outcome of critique is liberation

Communication and communicative action liberate ourselves from an expert-dominated, instrumentally rational modernity, we must interrogate and disclose those structures around us and relegitimate them religitimate: reclaim the power of institutions for those subject to those institutions, the belief important to us structures: substantive and procedure
Communicative action
1. Speaking as acting
Expressing moral and cultural viewpoints freely
2. Mutual, equalitarian, collective action
Respectful disclosure of perspectives
E.g. by asking questoin
3. Creating a “public sphere”
Space between politics, economics and culture where critique might occur
Analogy to a cell
Cytoplasm: political sphere in a cell
Public sphere: identifiable sort of substance
Media: all media together represent, but one media alone are institutions
4. (Deliberation)Making speech the basis of action, which is the basis of power harnessed by institutions
Institutions of politics and economics are legitimate to the extent we agree upon them via “forceless force of the better argument” or pure consensus
Reaching consensus requires deliberation(Competing argument, Discourse)
Public sphere require multiple voices, reaching consensus requires deliberation (discourse)
Deliberation
Deliberation concerned with things that happen in a certain way for the most part, but in which event is obscure, and with things in which it is indeterminate
Deliberation: talking about things that can be changed
Define what is good that held in common among them
Understanding deliberation
Deliberation is a tool, a purposeful conversation about what means to achieve a common end, that helps us to create policy solutions that uphold a common good
Deliberation is meaningful if it is (1)consensus, (2)truth
Deliberation vs Conversation
Everyone want to part of the deliberation and conversation
Deliberation ideally: Equal access,
Mutual accessible reasoning: verified
Trading obligation
Conversation: information sharing, unequal access, inside jokes
Inside jokes: no need to

Deliberation
Conversaion
Nature
Reason-giving
Information sharing
Equality of access
Equal access
Unequal access
Accessibility of reasoning
Mutual accessible reasoning:
Reasons that both we can agree upon
Inside jokes
Binding of decision
Mutually binding decisions:
Commitment-Offering yourself and one and other accountable, culpable
Goal-oreinted decision
Trading obligation
e.g. grouping yourself in a project
Not decision oriented
Conclusiveness
Provisional and dynamic
Closed
Publicity
Public
Private

Deliberative democracy - Getmann and Thompson’s definition
1. Subject: Free and equal citizens
True representatives
2. Process: justify decisions in process they give one another reasons
3. Nature of reason: Mutually acceptable reasons and generally accessible
No access to “God’s reasoning”
Religious reasoning or authority reasoning is not accepted because it is not generally accessible
We refer to (Ontology) who we are, (epistemology)what we are and ought to know and how we come to be
4. Aim: reaching conclusions that are binding
5. Nature of conclusion: binding in the present on all but open to challenge in future
To be morally blame in the future
E.g. HK govt.: consultation no deliberative exercise but straight to policy
Features of deliberative democracy
1. Procedural
a. Open access
Accommodates disabled, linguistic minorities, no morally-arbitrary distinctions for access
E.g. Internet as open access?
E.g. Language barrier: not able to participate,
b. Free speech
Within substantive confines (no hate speech)
Violence is generally not conducive to keeping the public sphere
c. Known aggregation technique
Voting: majoritarianism or proportional representation
2. Substantive
a. Liberalism
Protection of the individual’s right to moral autonomy
Able to make choices of what you are right
Committed to protection of individual rights
b. Democracy
Non-discrimination
Public choice of policy and leadership
Egalitarian: everyone considered equal, at least morally (implied utilitarianism)
Deliberation in practice
1. Reason giving
Justifications for beliefs that all can accept
Cf. faith and uncritical preferences
Justification according to publicly available information
C.f. state secrets and classified information
Reciprocity in reason-giving
Giving reasons, and accepting contrary positions

2. Consensus
Driving towards consensus
(a) Mutually acceptable procedures and rules
Important: clarity of rules
(b) Mutually acceptable decision
Clarity of decision facts
(c) Mutually binding decision
Clarity of decision duration

3. Non-discrimination
Open forum
Technology and multi-modal access
Accommodations
Linguistic accommodation
Space/time

4. Economy of moral disagreement
Maximize points of agreement while retaining moral commitments of each
Protect pluralism through consensus
Procedural solutions when intractable substantive differences arise
Multiple ideas and find a medium point amongst them

5. Public truth seeking
The system requires inputs of everyone
(a) Transparency of information
(b) Transparency of first principles
What do I believe about knowledge and the nature of man
(c) Transparency of preferences

6. Provisionalism – a constrained time horizon
Decision temporarily binding: floating in
Deliberations require commitment
Bring in accessible reasons
Saying “like”, “you know” need constant verification of ideas from others
Democratic deliberation and political analysis
1. Stakeholders?
2. Range of policy preferences?
3. Points of disagreement?
4. Previously excluded actors?
Verification, access, deliberative?
Deliberative analysis
Shift policy process from expert epistemology to communal epistemology
Expert epistemology: policies are the product of closed discussion of “Experts” who may or may not be subject to the policy
Communal : knowing together, policies are the products of agreement among the subjects of policies
Epistemology and deliberation
Experts speak in an idiom not available to other
Violates the accessibility and information transparency
Objectivity, neutrality, economizing
Citizens speak in a common idiom of experience
Opens information to include lived experience
Subjectivity, intersubjectivity, mutual accommodation
By reasoning together, citizens become more”familiar” with each other
Building utility through discussion
Common good from the ground up:
Dividing house will be riped down (destructive)ripe down take power form experts and give the people who have the consequence
Expert discussions alienate ordinary citizen from politics
Deliberative analysis and critical theory
Critical theory: the study of the losers in history and how the winners continue to marginalize the losers
Racial/gender/ethnic/religious discrimination
Deliberate participation learn about “persistent losers”
May learn why they “lose”
Mearn the methods “winners” marginalize
undo discrimination and build common good
Remove stigma of “studying the losers of history”: face-to-face analysis, mutual accommodation, recognition on equal terms
Advantages: Deliberative analysis “better”?
Inclusion: winners and losers
Cost-benefit analysis community discourse
Equal participation: mutual reason giving
Pragmatic: provisional, experimental, social-scientific
Understanding policy as lived, not applied: subjective rather than objective view
Deliberative analysis “worse”
Time consuming
Irrelevant information
Problem of apathy: enforce participation?
Assessment: who decides what matters?
Reasoning in the realm of possibility?
Using critical theory and deliberation in political analysis
Decision-making rules: procedural and substantive
Decision-maker: equality achieved?
Inclusive or exclusive rules?
Strategic vs. communicative action
Barriers to access?

Remodeling political institutions by exposing and reducing barriers to free deliberation
Resource dynamic: resource competition prevent mutual accommodation?
Political dynamic: leads mobilize for accommodation or confrontation?
Positional dynamic: groups view each other as antagonists?
Information dynamic: all people have access to same information?
Security dynamic : all people believe the state protects them equally?
Reading: G&T
Characteristics of deliberation
1. Reason-giving
2. Accessible: public in both where it takes place and in terms of content
3. Dynamic process: open to challenge in future
Reason: not consensual decision, imperfect decision-making process
4. Binding
5. Mutual respect **
Summary: a form of government where free and equal citizen justify decision where they gives reasons in a mutually acceptable and generally accessible way, to reach conclusion which is binding at present and open to challenge in future.
Deliberative democracy
1. Democratic sense
Expansive definition of who is included in the process of deliberation,Inclusive answer of who has the right to deliberate or choose the deliberators
Deliberation is not needed in every issue, e.g. Switzerland use referendum to decide which jet fighter should be bought (FA-18 from US or mirage 2000 form France)

2. Objection: Exclusiveness
Exclusive by informal norms defining what counts as proper deliberation
3. Purposes
(a) Promote legitimacy of collective decisions
(b) Encourage public-spirited perspectives on public issues
(c) Promote mutually respectful processes of decision-making
(d) Correct mistakes made by citizens and officials
Deliberative forum: advance both individual and collective understanding where they learn from each other, recognize misapprehensions and develop new views successfully withstand critical scrutiny
4. Deliberative democracy vs. Aggregative democracy
1st order theory: reject alternative theories so that it will be the lone theory capable of resolving moral disagreement
2nd order theory: about other theories that they provide ways of dealing with claims of conflicting first-order theories
Aggregative conceptions of democracy as leading rival of deliberative democracy in the area
Different types of democracy
1. Liberal democracy: one form of representative democracy, emphasize on individual liberty
US: citizens have rights to retain gun
Deliberation is still important
2. Representative democracy
3. Social democracy
4. Direct democracy
5. Aggregative democracy
6. Deliberative democracy
E.g. civil partnership(gay marriage)
Topic 9: Feminism
Natural equality/formal equality
Introduction
Gender equality Gender blind
Equal treatment, e.g. right to vote, right to education
Liberal feminism
1. Equal treatment approach
Assimilationist approach
Idea of citizenship is defined in association in protection of your own country/territory
E.g. should women be served in the army? (equal citizen?)
Sex discrimination Ordinance
Similar situation doctrine: if men has it, female can also has it (rationale: women can receive pension of their husband)
How about maternal leave that only woman has?
2. Different treatment approach
Treating differently under some circumstances
Difficulty: may perpetuate negative stereotype
E.g. Professor on tenure, renewed on 10 year basis
Unfair to female professor who need to give birth
E.g. Period leave: a few days every month
3. Critical feminist
It is not about Equal treatment and different treatment
If not participated actively, there are institutionalized discrimination
Position of power
If institution is such that all women are compelled to make the choice between family and career, there are still inequality of power
Feminist scholarship
Challenge epistemological and philosophical foundation
Gender recognized as fundamental organizer of social and political life
So-called objective and neutral knowledge is man-centered, male experience taken the norm women’s experience and voice excluded in its constitution assumptions and concepts based on patriarchal system
Neutral and objective knowledge of the outside world Objection itself is not biased by who the observer is
Law and politics (Feminist jurisprudence)
E.g. Criminal law, rape(consent), battering, self-defense
(1) Proof of Rape: what amount to “consent” in sexual intercourse,
(2) Marital rape: development of “marital rape”
(3) Sexual harassment: no such term before
Significance: Inclusion of feminist scholarship change the exclusion of women’s perspective in these disciplines
Context of discovery cannot be separated from context of justification
Concept of discovery: the process a scientific problem is arrived at
Context of justification– process subject to vigorous scientific testing
Scientific research methods cannot eliminate social bias
Definition of problem already biases through definition of certain phenomena as problematic
Problem of epistemology: who can be the subjects/agents of knowledge
Research
Certain social biases in construction of knowledge
Biases not eliminated even after vigorous scientific testing
E.g. Kohlberg’s research of moral development of children
Political philosophy
Aristotle: men is by nature political animal
Confucianism: women are subject to men’s order
John Locke: in social contract, only men are able to enter into social contract, women and children are property of men Reason of inferiority of women: women are less than human, not able to think rational thinking and reason
Suffrage movement in 19th century argue that women possess same intellect

Feminist standpoint theory
1. Democratic participation in scholarship
Political philosophers should not advocate equality on one hand but endorse gender inequality on the otherdemocratic participation in scholarship
Knowledge seeking requires democratic participatory politics
2. Knowledge as socially situated all people can have a voice in production of knowledge less biase and more inclusive human knowledge biase are exposed and critiqued
Nobody can transcend the historical and social context he lives in
Remove the cover and blinded the obscures
Raise issues that enlarge the scope of inquiry
Context of discovery is as important as context of justification
3. Decrease distortion
Decrease partialities and distortions in picture of nature and social life
Try to understand women’s life, and give them a voice in the process a ground to criticize dominant claim
No value-free objectivity
True scientific objectivity requires inclusiveness and intellectual participatory democracy
Value of “the Other”’s perspective: look back from more distant, critical location
Political participation: State of gender equality
Male: Male-dominant hierarchy in political parties
Women: Bias that women cannot be good leader: i independence, decisiveness, command and control but women have other qualities that enable them to be good leader: tolerant, communicate skills
The question is how do people see as desirable leadership
Example: Llyssa Hollander on Drugs approval
1. Contraceptive pills v. Viagra approval
Contraceptive pills: reluctant of approval in both US (pro-life) and Japan (male-dominance)
Cf. Viagra: improve sex life of man
Sexual liberation and sexual autonomy given by contraceptive pills challenge the social norm
Right to engage in sexual activities without the fear of consequent
2. Abortion
Reproductive choice of woman
Example: gender and Political Participation (voting)
Emergence of gender gap
Definition: substantial gender difference in voting behavior, opinion of some
1. Traditional trend: women are more conservative (right-wing)
Explanation: Women are largely confined to family, More religious ,Women tend to live longer
2. Modern trend: women become more liberal(left-wing) than man
(a) Women has more participation in paid job
(b) Women movement raise consciousness of discriminationconcern about equality vote for liberals
(c) Advance of post-materialism
Post-materialism: the tendency on individual autonomy, freedom and expressions,
3. Political concern of women
More emphasis on government spending of welfare
Reasons:
(1) childcare
(2) longer lives women have stronger interest in retirement pension
(3) Raise in divorce rate: single household suffer from poverty
(4) Single parents
Issues that women are particular interested
Environmental issue – as childcare, care more about the impact of environment on their family and children
War and peace
Tutorial Question
1. Limitation of conception of conventional “objectivity”, challenges from standpoint theory and alternative offered
A. Limitation & Challenges
Traditional: European Centralism, male, white
Value-free objectivity
Not judgmental or epistemological relativism
Weak objectivity: fail to look into desire, interest and values that shaped the agendas, contents and results
Too narrow:
(1) eliminate only differences in values and interests among researchers regarded by the community as competent
(2) Misunderstand that only context of justification is truly scientific
(3) Fail to examine historical commitment

B. Standpoint theory
a) basic
(1) Analysis of both micro process and macro tendencies
(2) Intellectual participatory democracy
(3) Look back at self in all cultural particularlity form more distant, critical, objectifying location
b) Justifications
(1) Strong objectivity
Judgmental relativism: need to look form the viewpoint of “the Others”
Not just female, but also the Others
(2) Strong reflexivity
Reflect on Socially situated, cultural particularlity
By adopting “outsider within”, disrupting dominant practice using objectivity, reason…(see reading)
Intellectual participatory democracy

2. Illustration of Social and political influences on drug approval based upon Standpoint theory
No absolute objectivism
Feminist: andocentric (male-centred)
Pharmaceutical industry is protective and lucrative
Pfizer: Revenue USD67.8 billion
Contraceptive pills made by French small pharmaceutical
Big companies may have economic pressure on govt.
Government policy
China as the first to approve RU486 (medical abortion)

3. Gender studies and voting behavior and political participation
Traditional gender gap: conservative
Modern gender gap: more left-wing
Postindustrial societies, younger generation has modern gender gap
Development societies:
Gender as related to other factors
E.g. education level
HK: ever since we have election, women can vote
Right of women has already become a norm
People vote for women
Party preference
Can be seen easily in Europe
Difficult to draw a clear ideological differences in HK
Gender dealignment
US Presidential Election: 57% of women voter votes for Obama (Democrats as t
Topic 10: Postmodernism
Modernity
Claim that there is clear rupture between present and past
(1) Pace of change: fast and speedy
(2) Scope of change: wide scope, involved in different parts of the world
(3) Nature of modern institution:
Rise of modernity - Features
(1) political system of nation-states,
(2) industrialization: machines and mass production, coordination of human labour and productivity
(3) bureaucracy and administration replace the church as source of authority and legitimacy
(4) Capitalism as the mode of production
Market-driven: economic and political domain as separated, clear stratification of class
Key features
1. Science and technology
As solutions of human problems
Legitimate form of knowledge
2. Secularism and scientific reason
Not with religious perspective
Belief in reason
3. Belief in progress
4. Increased mobility
In terms of speed and also scope
Context of emergence of postmodernism
Disenchantment
World War: when science and technology are used to destruct
People are no longer so faithful in science and technology
Criticize the belief of progress by force
Debate: has modernity ended? We lived in post-modernity? Or globalization fo modernity
(1) Focus on mass media
(2) Mass production and consumerism
(3) Rise of global economy
(4) Shift from manufacturing to service economies
Postmodernity
Attacking meta-narratives (grand-narratives) grand narratives: the ideas we take for granted, which we base our actions on
Rationale: political consequences associated with the science.
e.g. rise to phenomenon of colonalism ,mass destruction and genocide. science should not be the only way of science
Wrong to make the claim exclusive and neglect its dark side (e.g. ideas like belif in progress, triumph of science)
Heralds a pluralism of narratives
1960s: civil right movements trying to challenge grand-narratives
E.g. Civil right movement in US challenge racism (US nationalism)
E.g. Women’s movement challenge patriachy (men are primary agent of history, gender inequality)
E.g. Environmentalism challenges the current capitalistic mode of production and consumption
E.g. Occupy Wall Street challenges that capitalistic growth promises progress
Post-modernism enable the rise of these social movements
Advent of post-materialist values
Post-materialist: shift from values of consumerism to autonomy, social justice, self-expression
Self-involvement, more interest in political autonomy, community
Excesses of modernization promote some alternative to the excesses generated
Key features
1. End of grand narratives ,objective truth
Challenge the premises of science as a way to know the world only one of the alternatives
2. Attack of binary oppositions
Binary oppositions: masculine/feminine, western/eastern, reason/emotion, objective/subjective since they mask hierarchies of power and oppression
Inherit biases in oppositions that make one superior and he other inferior
Post-modernity: not shift or reverse the biase, but stop thinking in the opposition identity that mask hierarchies of power and oppression
3. Focus on representation and interpretation
Western: liberal, individualism
Subjective knowledge is not to be dismisses, but just part of social being
Representation: the kind of image we have of the world around us
Post-modernity: we all see the world from subjective manner. There are biases which play in
Cf: Modernity -we see the world in an objective manner, impartial science
4. Others: Not categorization
Post-modernism avoided categorization, not want to be identified as post-modernism
Intellectual trend as a critical
Hard to work with particular social or political agenda
Intervention in IR
Postmodernism as critical attitude rather than paradigm
Grand narratives of IR: How did it come to be seen as natural and inevitable to privilege state-centric accounts of world politics?
Once you claim the important actor as state, you marginalize other actors
Later work engaged more directly with political events and representations
E.g. Cold war, security, migration
Big idea
1. Critical approach to interpretation & representation
2. Using archives images, content analysis
3. Challenges common sense assumptions about international relations
David: US Foreign policy and politics of identity
Identification of danger
Danger is objective? To what extent danger is an objective factor?
Why Iraq has been a danger when it invades in 1991 but not in 1981 of Iran
Why drugs of illegal ones are danger or when those produced by pharmaceutical companies as the latter cause more causalty?
How is the danger represented in US policy ?
Danger is subjective, on understanding of identity
Danger is something threatening the identity that someone takes for granted
Interpretation of danger: danger perceived to be the alternative narrative/identity that threatens the hegemony of the norm
Pose questions on identity on US will be considered danger: e.g. freedom, liberty, small govt., belief in God(Christian identity), property
Cf: Western European: secular, not that religious
Communism: do not believe in property and religion
Not the military capability that makes Soviet Union a threat, but ideological difference
Framework of foreign policy
(1) Secularism and spirituality
Govt. not suppose to have religious bias
But practically, religious language and social force
E.g. never US president without religion
(2) Evengelism of fear
You use the kind of language and image that give impression of danger
E.g. The Red Scare
A biblical kind of fear
E.g. portray Communism tendency as
Domestic policy as connected to foreign policy and reflected
E..g. Red Scare returns (Obama)
Values it hold when have
(3) The sense of mission
Has the power to put this sense of mission into practice
Cold War- the type of danger used to be within the states are projected to Soviet Union
Constructivism vs. post-modernism
Similarities
Realities are socially constructed
Differences: Approach to identities
(1) Constructivism: mutual constitution of norms, through mutual interaction overtime
E.g. sovereignty : when owned by one, the other not to interfere shared international norm
Does not necessarily tell how norm become dominant
(2) Post-modernism: plus the power
How does sovereignty become dominant and global? What are the exclusion? What are the negative consequences?(genocide – non-intervention of states)
Norms are not equal, but become dominant because there are power relations
Readings
Postmodernism
No absolute truth
Dispense grand narratives, but replace with smaller and local narratives
Q1: Blindspots of dispensing “Grand narratives” of postmodernism
1. “socially constructed” self ignores that self is constructed by individual’s narrative of him or herself, i.e. growth of individual through the socialization process
2. Incompatibility to commitment to settled philosophical position
Turn away from liberal humanist thought
Left separate groupings as isolated communities
3. Dilemma between oppositional character of left-inspired distrust of authority and right wing belief in Kantian or Enlightenment ideas
4. Lack settled external viewpoint, passively conservative in effect
5. Circular argument: post-modernism as a “Grand narrative” itself?
6. “Grand narratives” taken as granted difficult to dispense
Q2: Postmodernism led to cultural relativism?
Cultural relativism: culture is relative, no culture is higher than another, and people cannot blame others from different culture based on their own perception
Moral relativist: everything is relative to morality
Cultural relativist: Eastern people has a culture that put less emphasis on human rights should not be criticized on the basis of western thought
Problem: geographical and individual difference in propensity (e.g. French may like Chinese food)
Post-modernist: framing issues
Use culture as the kind of narratives
Q3: Role of identity and culture in producing foreign policy
Depends on how a country perceive itself: US
World savior
Puritan legacy: from England to USA, live in very simple life, pursue ideological purity manifest in foreign policy
Civilizing, looking after primitive people
Role of identity and culture: US as the good guy
Clear dichotomy of good and civil strongly embedded
Axis of evil: Soviet Union Middle East