COMPARATIVE POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY

SOCIAL SCIENCES 259A

Professor David Smith

ST 733

824-7292 or x2572

Spring 1996

Thursday 9:30-12:20, SST 475 (1st meeting)

Wednesday 9-12, SST 675 (subsequently)

Late twentieth century academia is characterized by a relentless push toward specialization seems to drive all of us toward progressively narrower and more focussed areas of expertise. In this era of disciplinary compartmentalization and the proliferation of sub-specialties within fields of study, there are growing debates about whether sociology and other social sciences, like anthropology and political science, can really claim they possess any unifying understandings of today's world. Amid the cacophony of specialists speaking in discordant voices, there's a sense of a lost "core" knowledge in social science. Sometimes this perception of disciplinary "decomposition" then leads academics to either cling more resolutely to rigid positivistic epistemologies, or to plunge down the slippery slide of post-modernism -- which further polarizes the discourses. In this context, comparative political sociology sounds another arcane domain for certified specialists.

But my premise in this course is rather different. I intend to argue that questions of comparative political sociology animated and motivated much of what we now refer to as "classical" social theory -- including writers like Karl Marx, Max Weber, and Emile Durkheim. A reexamination of the both old and new texts exploring macro-historical political change in comparative and international perspective, should help us to return to some of basic social science questions about conflict, order, social classes, hierarchies, institutions, etc., as well as basic issues in methodology and epistemology dealing with how we "know" about socio-political reality.

Although it is "open" to all graduate students, the seminar is offered as part of the first-year "core" sequence in UCI's new NSF Democratization Traineeship Program. It is designed to lay the basic foundations for a sociological perspective on democracy throughout the contemporary world. To do this, we will examine major monographs that deal with state formation and consolidation, the historical emergence of democracy and dictatorship, the etiology of rebellion and revolution, and the relationship between states and economic development.

The course will have a macrostructural emphasis, stressing processes transforming political and economic systems, class alignments, bureaucracies, and societal institutions. Much less attention will be given to more "micro" and "meso" phenomena like political socialization, citizen attitudes, public opinion, or voting behavior. This does not imply these things are less important or interesting. The macro focus reflects my own interests and expertise and an eagerness to use the short ten-week period we'll be together to maximum advantage.

Course Organization and Requirements

As a graduate seminar this course requires regular completion of all assigned readings and active informed participation in class discussion, as well as written work. The readings are extensive and constitute the core of the seminar. This course is, in effect, a "great books" class -- a majority of the time students put into the course will be reading "important" monographs (and essays that are commentary on these). Comparative political sociologists do publish many shorter journal articles and book chapters, but I've made a strategic decision to examine the more detailed "long version" arguments in this course. Serious students of comparative political change will want to read all the material on the syllabus. But time is short in a ten week quarter; there may be some occasions when the instructor suggests skimming some materials and studying other passages more closely.

Since the course is run as a seminar, participation by everyone (regardless of your background or grad program) is crucial. Two requirements provide some tangible structure and incentive for this effort. First, before each class period every student should take time to think of several key questions that s/he feels address key issues raised the that week's material. Each participant should write out 3 to 5 of these (taking no more than the equivalent of 10 to 15 typed lines). These will be collected and returned with comments. They won't be formally "graded" -- but may factor into assessments of class participation.

Second, each student will be a member of 2 "committees" which will lead class discussion for part of each class meeting. Depending on course enrollment, these committees will probably have 2 or 3 members. Each week the committee responsible for the upcoming class will prepare a 3-5 page report or outline for dissemination to seminar participants. These reports, while brief, should do more than just summarize the content of the readings (though some minimal synopsis may be necessary). Rather, they should be provocative (though possibly roughly hewn) "think pieces" designed to help all of us pull ideas together and critically evaluate the week's topic. These reports/outlines MUST be distributed to all seminar attendees BY TUESDAY AT NOON, so that all of us can read them before the Wednesday morning meetings [this assumes that we WILL reschedule the seminar time to Wednesday] (I intend to be rather "tough" with this deadline, since late distribution of these short papers totally defeats their purpose!). To assist the committees with writing these briefs and preparation to lead class discussion, there will be an opportunity for these groups to meet with the instructor on Thursday afternoon or Friday of the preceding week (yes -- this does require planning, and even reading, ahead a little!).

In the past I have required students in similar seminars to write a 15-20 page research paper as a final requirement. The results have been poor. The short ten week quarter, in concert with the reading and committee reports, conspire to wear even the most intrepid graduate students down to the point where the time and energy to do a first-rate term paper is lacking. Also, work on such a paper tends to divert people from the readings and issues under current class discussion. So as an alternative, students in this class will write a "take-home" exam, consisting of a series of relatively short essays on some of the issues and problems raised in the readings/discussions (including some that allow students to describe how what they've learned could be used to address research or policy problems that particularly interest them). To protect writers from excessive "self-exploitation" there will be a strict time and page limit for the take-home. It will be distributed at the 9 am, Monday, June 10th and be due four days (96 hours, 5760 minutes) later at 9 am on Friday, June 14th. Mark your calendars now! If that scheduling of the "take-home" is problematic for any reason, let me know as soon as possible.

For those who worry about such things: class participation will be about 20% of the course grade; each committee report will count 20% (total 40%); and the take-home final the other 40%.

COURSE OUTLINE AND READING LIST

April 4
Introduction to the course
Mini-lecture on comparative political sociology
& classical social theory

April 10

Perry Anderson, Lineages of the Absolutist State
Foreward, Part I, Part II, Chs. 1-6 (pp. 7-360)

April 17

Perry Anderson, Lineages of the Absolutist State
Part II, Ch. 7, Part III, and "Two Notes" (pp. 361-549)
Mary Fulbrook and Theda Skocpol, "Destined Pathways:
The Historical Sociology of Perry Anderson," Pp. 170-210 in T. Skocpol (ed.),
Vision and Method in Historical Sociology, 1984, New York: Cambridge.

April 24
Charles Tilly, Coercion, Capital and European States:
AD 990-1990

May 1

Barrington Moore, Social Origins of Dictatorship and
Democracy Foreward, Preface, Chapters I-V (pp. ix-313)

May 8
Barrington Moore, Social Origins of Dictatorship and
Democracy Chapters VI-IX, Epilogue, Appendix (pp. 314-523)
Theda Skocpol, "A Critical Review of Barrington Moore's Social Origins
of Dictatorship and Democracy," Politics and Society (1973) 4(1)1-34.

May 15
Theda Skocpol, States and Social Revolutions:
A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia & China

May 22
Jeffrey Paige, Agrarian Revolution (selections)
Margaret Somers and Walter Goldfrank, "The Limits of
Agronomic Determinism: A Critique of Paige's Agrarian Revolution."
Comparative Studies in Society and History (July 1979) 21(3)443-458.

May 29
John Walton and David Seddon, Free Markets & Food Riots:
The Politics of Global Adjustment Part I Introduction; Part II Case Studies,
selections; Part III Conclusion

June 5
Peter Evans, Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation