Harvard Citations

Dear all,
In the review session on Saturday I mentioned an excellent guide for Harvard citations. You can find it in the following website:

http://www.bournemouth.ac.uk/library/citing_references/docs/Citing_Refs.pdf

You can also find the powerpoint slides we covered in the review session here:

http://www.open.ac.uk/documents/8/rd11160555162811266.ppt

(please note that this link might not be active until 6pm tonight)

Have a wonderful day,

Karem

Tutorial 8^th February

In previous weeks we have looked at Liberalism and religion in a broadly liberal context. The theorists and case studies were situated in fairly liberal societies. We now look at Iran as a place where religious claims have turned into a religious state project and where political authority is rooted in religion. How does this work in the concrete example of the Iranian state since the 1979 Iranian revolution? This changes the way we see the role of politics. Religious politics in this case is not solely about identity or redressing material injustice, it is the foundation for a state. There has been much contestation inside Iran, with critiques of the way that religion is interpreted, from sacred and secular groups. Even in a fairly successful religious state the power struggles continue in this new framework.

The questions this week split into two halves, the first is intended to help you think about the role of religion in explaining the outcomes of the Iranian revolution. The second continues this by asking you to think about the role of Western ideas in shaping the Iranian constitution, but also considers how the case study may be useful in thinking about other issues on the course. This is may be a rich case study for bringing in to exam questions in other rooms of the course.

Pick an ‘ism’-Religious Fundamentalism, Nationalism, Fascism, Anti-Imperialism, Populism, Totalitarianism?

What did the term ‘fundamentalism’ imply in its original US context? Does Khameini’s ideology conform to this definition?

If Iran had been predominantly Sunni (had not had a Shi’ite scholarly tradition)would the Iranian revolution have taken a different form?

Compare Soroush’s critique of an Islamic state with his pupil, Akbar Ganji’s?

How far can populism and nationalism explain Khomeini’s ideology?

What is the significance of religion in the Iranian revolution?

Other theorists

What non-Islamic thinkers were mentioned as influencing the thought of Iranians?

How did ‘the West’ influence the revolution?

Has Khomaini been reading Machiavelli?

Can ‘religious truth’ be analogous to Latour’s ‘facts speaking for themselves’ in a totalising politics?

If the Cold War had not happened, would the Iranian revolution have happened?

The three approaches with which you looked at the Cold War prioritised ideology, geo-politics and technological capacity in explaining the Cold War. Can you use these perspectives to analyse the Iranian revolution?

Tutorial 11^th December

Room 2: Political Animals

Weeks 1 & 2

Introduction-

In the first week of Room 2 we have looked at the question of what it means, politically, to be human. It introduces Aristotle’s idea of the ‘political animal’; that human beings are special amongst the animals because they have the power of speech; the ability to pronounce on matters of right and wrong. If there is a distinction between the political realm and the rest of nature, then there is a line drawn, which can include and exclude from the political realm.

That line has been drawn differently by different theorists. Jeremy Bentham, in discussing how law should treat different groups, argued that the significant feature of politically relevant creatures was their ability to suffer. Mary Wollstonecroft, in arguing that women should have the same political rights as men, claimed that humanity was clearly distinguished from the animal kingdom by reasoning, virtue and knowledge. Three modern takes on the problem of distinguishing the political/human world from the non-political/natural world were introduced: Fukuyama argued that it is the sum of human characteristics that give us that essential factor X that makes us human; McKibben argues that it is our ability to resist and decide against our ‘natural’ urges; and Gray argued that there is no reason to distinguish humans from other animals.

For this tutorial we worked as a group to fill out the grid below in more detail, ensuring that students understood the different debates in which questions of political humaness might be important-

Thinker	Their understanding of the dividing line	The debate this is relevant to.
Aristotle	Speech and moral judgment/ voice and utility judgment.	What counts as 'political'.
Bentham	The ability to suffer/ inability to suffer.	Who and what should the law cover.
Wollstonecroft	Reason, value and knowledge/ brute animals.	Whether women should be accorded political status.
Fukuyama	Factor X (emergent property of humanness)/ those not genetically human.	Who is accorded moral status.
McKibben	The ability to say ‘enough’/those governed by species instinct.	Whether a techno-optimism is justified.
Gray	There is no distinction, we are all governed by species instinct and it cannot be avoided.	Whether there is any such thing as the ‘progress of humanity’.