The Origin of Politics
POLS 321 Dr.
Rebecca J. Hannagan
Fall 2009 406
Zulauf Hall
T/TH 3:30-4:45 - DU 461 rhannaga@niu.edu
Hours:
12:45 - 3:15 Tues
Course Objective:
In
this course we will draw on evolutionary theory and specifically evolutionary
psychology to frame our approach to studying political behavior. This is a research-based class. The readings for this course consist of a
survey of recent research from the fields of biology, psychology, anthropology,
economics, and political science.
The
readings for this course are not typical of a course in political science. Some of the articles are quite dense and may
contain complex methodologies. Do not
let this scare you away. I do not expect
you to understand everything you will be reading immediately. I do, however, expect you to spend some time
with the readings and do your best to get at what each reading is about,
generally, and then think about why it matters to the study of
political behavior. Sometimes this will
not be obvious or you will not really understand the material until it has been
discussed in class. You will also have
to do a considerable amount of analytical thinking and writing in this
course. As we progress through the
material it is my hope that you will become more comfortable with the readings
and your ability to react to them.
Reading difficult material and then thinking analytically about the
possible implications is a skill – and a skill that you can learn.
Course Materials:
·
Articles posted on Blackboard under Course Documents
You
are expected to have your reading done each day before you come to class. This is a seminar style course, meaning the
focus is more on discussion than lecture.
It is important that you come to class prepared to discuss the
material.
All
of your papers must be submitted via Blackboard. I will use SafeAssign to check for plagiarism
on all of your written assignments.
Calculation of Grades:
Your
grade in this course will consist of your performance on two exams (there will
be no cumulative final exam), one longer paper, and three very short reaction
papers. The following is a breakdown of
how the grades will be weighted:
Midterm
Exam 20% Reaction Papers 30%
Final
Exam 20% Paper 30%
I
will adhere to the following grading scale:
|
100-97%
= A+ |
89-87%
= B+ |
79-77%
= C+ |
69-67%
= D+ |
59%
< = F |
|
96-93%
= A |
86-83%
= B |
76-73%
= C |
66-63%
= D |
|
|
92-90%
= A- |
82-80%
= B- |
72-70%
= C- |
62-60%
= D- |
|
General Information:
I
do not accept late work, nor do I offer make-up exams (NO EXCUSES!). If your paper is late you will receive a 0 on
that assignment. Since all papers must
be submitted to Blackboard, I expect the date and time stamp to be the date the
paper is due and prior to when the class meets.
Further, if you are not present for an exam, you will receive a 0 on
that exam. If you have a situation that
requires exception, you must notify me well in advance and be prepared to
produce documentation.
Blackboard
is your friend. Check it often for announcements and for
important course documents such as your readings and power points. I reserve the right to modify the schedule in
the interest of time or due to the difficulty of the material. If I decide to modify the schedule I will
notify the class immediately of my decision.
If changes are made and you are not aware of them because you do not
regularly attend class or choose to sleep during class there will be no exceptions
made to accommodate you. It is in
your best interest to attend every class and pay attention to the material
being covered. You will use
Blackboard to submit your written assignments for this class.
No
cell phone use during class (including text messaging). Please turn your cell phones to silent or off (and not just on
vibrate). No laptop or blackberry use
during class. Do not text message, read
the newspaper, sleep during class, come late or leave class early as these are
inappropriate behaviors for a university class and are disruptive to your
peers. Be respectful of those who are
interested in being active participants in their education.
This
syllabus is a contract between me (the professor) and you (the student). The syllabus will be available on Blackboard
throughout the semester for your reference.
If you have any questions about the policies set forth in the syllabus,
I highly recommend that you talk to me during the first week of classes. It is at that time that any questions you may
have about policies can be addressed.
After that, if you choose to remain in the class I assume that you agree
to the policies and procedures I have set forth in the syllabus.
Academic Dishonesty:
The
maintenance of academic honesty and integrity is of vital concern to the
Department of Political Science and the University community. Any student found
guilty of academic dishonesty shall be subject to both academic and
disciplinary sanctions. If I find that
you have plagiarized your academic work, you will receive an F on the assignment
– no exceptions. Again, all of your
papers must be submitted via Blackboard.
I will use SafeAssign to check for plagiarism.
If
you are caught cheating, falsifying, or otherwise misrepresenting your work
twice you will fail the class. In
addition, if I suspect academic dishonesty your name will be turned over to the
Director of Undergraduate Studies and the Chair of the Political Science
Department who will make a determination as to further disciplinary action
which may include academic probation or expulsion.
Academic
dishonesty includes, but is not limited to, the following:
*cheating
*fabrication and falsification
*plagiarism
*misrepresentation to avoid academic work
Other Information:
Under
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, NIU is committed to making
reasonable accommodations for persons with documented disabilities. Those students with disabilities that may
have some impact on their coursework and for which they may require accommodations
should notify the Center for Access-Ability Resources (CAAR) on the fourth
floor of the Health Services Building.
CAAR will assist students in making appropriate accommodations with
course instructors. It is important that
CAAR and instructors be informed of any disability-related needs during the
first two weeks of the semester.
Undergraduate Writing Awards
The Department of Political Science will recognize, on
an annual basis, outstanding undergraduate papers written in conjunction with
300-400 level political science courses or directed studies. Authors do not
have to be political science majors or have a particular class standing.
Winners are expected to attend the Department’s spring graduation ceremony
where they will receive a certificate and $50.00. Papers, which can be
submitted by students or faculty, must be supplied in triplicate to a
department secretary by February 28. All copies should have two cover pages –
one with the student’s name and one without the student’s name. Only papers
written in the previous calendar year can be considered for the
award. However, papers completed in the current spring semester are eligible
for the following year’s competition even if the student has graduated.
Department of Political Science Web Site
Undergraduates are strongly encouraged to consult the
Department of Political Science web site on a regular basis. This up-to-date,
central source of information will assist students in contacting faculty and
staff, reviewing course requirements and syllabi, exploring graduate study,
researching career options, tracking department events, and accessing important
details related to undergraduate programs and activities. To reach the site, go
to http://polisci.niu.edu
_______________________________________
Tentative Schedule:
August
25: Introduction and course overview
August
27: Epistemology, Science and the
Standard Social Science Model
I. Evolutionary
Theory and Political Behavior
September
1: Primer on Evolution and Evolutionary
Psychology
• Watch Louise Leakey - The Evolutionary
Origins of Humans (TED.com)
·
Read Cosmides and Tooby, “Evolutionary Psychology: A Primer.” http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/primer.html
September
3: Primer on Evolution and Evolutionary
Psychology, continued
·
Watch Spencer Wells - DNA, population genetics, and the diversity of
humankind (TED.com)
·
Cosmides and Tooby article continued
September
8: Social Cooperation – Machiavellian
Intelligence
·
Watch the BBC’s Planet Earth segment on jungles – carrying capacity,
group size, and inter-group coalitionary aggression
·
Read Orbell et al., “’Machiavellian’ Intelligence as a Basis for the
Evolution of Cooperative Dispositions.”
American Political Science Review. 98: 1-15.
·
Article from the Economist, October 6, 2007: “Patience, fairness and the human
condition.”
September
10: Social Cooperation – Mach
Intelligence, continued
·
Watch Jane Goodall - Chimpanzees and conservation (TED.com)
·
Watch Susan Savage-Rumbaugh - Bonobos and culture (TED.com)
·
Orbell et al. article continued
September
15: Social Cooperation – Egalitarianism
·
Read Cashdan, “Egalitarianism among Hunters and Gatherers.” American
Anthropologist. 82: 116-120.
·
Read Gintis, “Explaining Altruistic Behavior in Humans.” Evolution and
Human Behavior. 24:
153-172.
·
First Reaction Paper Due
September
17: Social Cooperation – Egalitarianism
and Strong Reciprocity
• Gintis article continued
·
Read Fehr and Fishbacher, “Third-party Punishment and Social
Norms.” Evolution
and Human Behavior. 25: 63-87.
September
22: Social Cooperation – Wary
Cooperators
·
Read Hibbing and Alford, “Accepting Authoritative Decisions: Humans as Wary Cooperators.” American
Journal of Political Science. 48: 62-76.
September
24: Social Cooperation – Equality and
Monkeys (?!?)
·
Read Brosnan and DeWaal, “Monkeys Reject Unequal Pay.” Nature. 425: 297-299.
·
Read Bowles and Gintis, “Is Equality Passe? Homo Reciprocans and the Future of
Egalitarian Politics.” Boston
Review, 1998.
September
29: Human Nature – Egalitarian or
Hierarchical?
·
Read Boehm, Chapters 1-2 of Hierarchy in
the Forest. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard
University Press.
October
1: Human Nature – Egalitarian or
Hierarchical?
·
Read Boehm, Chapter 3 of Hierarchy in
the Forest. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard
University Press.
October
6: Human Nature – Conflict and War
·
Read Wrangham, “Evolution of Coalitionary Killing.” Yearbook of
Physical Anthropology. 42: 1-30.
October 8:
Human Nature - Conflict and War
·
Read Shergill et al., “Two Eyes for an Eye: The Neuroscience of Force
Escalation.” Science. 301: 187.
·
Second Reaction Paper Due.
October 13:
First Exam
II. Testing
Evolutionary Concepts in Political Science
October
15: Human Nature – Egalitarian or
Hierarchical . . . or both . . . and gendered?
• Watch Elaine Morgan - Aquatic Ape Hypothesis (TED.com)
·
Read Hannagan, “Gendered Political Behavior: A Darwinian Feminist Approach.” Sex Roles: A
Journal of Research. 59: 465-475.
October
20: Human Nature – Egalitarian or
Hierarchical . . . or both . . . and gendered?
·
Read McDermott, “Gender Differences in a Simulated War Game.”
October
22: A Theory of Political Behavior
·
Smith et al., “Evolutionary Theory and Political Leadership: Why Certain
People Do Not Trust Decision-Makers” The Journal of
Politics.
October
27: A Theory of Political Leadership,
continued
·
Smith et al., “Evolutionary Theory and Political Leadership: Why
Certain People Do Not Trust Decision-Makers” The
Journal of Politics.
October
29: Leader and Follower Behavior
·
Larimer et al., “Balancing Ambition and Gender Among Decision
Makers.” The
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences. 614: 56-73.
·
Third Reaction Paper Due.
November
3: Neuroscience and Political Behavior
·
Read Dolan, “Emotion, Cognition, and Behavior.” Science. 298: 1191-1194.
November
5: Neuroscience and Political Behavior
·
Read McDermott, “The Feeling of Rationality: the Meaning of
Neuroscientific Advances for Political Science.” Perspectives on
Politics. 2: 691-706.
November
10: Neuroscience and Political Behavior
·
Read Hibbing et al., “The Neural Basis of Representative
Democracy.” Unpublished
manuscript under review.
November
12: Groups and Political Behavior
·
Read Van Vugt et al., “Gender Differences in Cooperation and
Competition.” Psychological
Science. 18: 19-23.
November
17: Gendered Groups and Political
Decision Making
·
Read Hannagan and Larimer “Decision Making in Gendered Groups: Evidence
from a Laboratory Experiment.” Political
Behavior.
November
19: Neuroscience and Political Behavior
·
Read Eisenberger et al., “Does Rejection Hurt? An fMRI Study of Social
Exclusion.” Science. 302: 290-292.
November
24: Neuroscience and Political Behavior
·
Watch Nina Jablonski - Race and Climate (TED.com)
·
Read Richeson and Shelton, “When Prejudice Does Not Pay: Effects of
Interracial Contact on Executive Function.”
Psychological Science. 14: 287-290.
December
1: In-Groups, Out-Groups and Political
Decision Making
·
Kurzban et al., “Can Race Be Erased? Coalitional Computation and Social
Categorization.” Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences. 98: 15387-15392.
·
Paper Due
December
3: Last Day of Class – Wrap-Up Lecture,
Discussion and Review for Final
December
8: Second Exam - 4:00 - 5:50 pm
______________________________________
Reaction Paper Assignment
A
reaction paper is a two-page (typed, double-spaced, 12 pt. font) “reaction” to
a group of readings. I want you to react to the readings and not
summarize the readings. I read
them. I know what they are about. I do not want a book report. I want your reaction paper to illustrate that
you had some sort of an “intellectual struggle” with the material. I want you to take up one or more of the
issues raised and talk about the problems, implications, your proposed
solution, a different (a.k.a. “better”) way of looking at the issue, etc. Think big.
This is hard, but another challenge is that it must ONLY BE TWO PAGES
LONG. You will be down-graded if you go beyond two pages. I recommend you get your thoughts down on
paper then walk away from it for a day or so.
When you come back to it with fresh eyes you will be able to decipher what
is important to say and what is not.
[Note: reaction papers done 20 minutes before class are generally really
bad.] Your reaction papers are to be
submitted via Blackboard and will be checked for plagiarism using SafeAssign.
Here
are some Dos and Don’ts that may help you:
DO
·
Be analytical – think BIG! What
are the implications of the key points of a reading or readings in the
short-term, long-term, etc.?
·
Challenge the argument being made by an author or authors and suggest
an alternative
·
Consider problems with the approach or methodology being used and
suggest an alternative
·
Integrate common themes among the readings wherever you can
DON’T
·
Summarize
·
Tell me you think the reading was long, boring, interesting, funny,
etc. You are not a literary critic.
·
State the obvious
·
Ignore the important themes among the readings
·
GO OVER TWO PAGES!!!
Long Paper Assignment: The Literature Review
The
literature review should include 6 academic sources and should be 8-10 pages
long (typed, double-spaced, 12 pt. font, regular margins) with proper
citations. This must be submitted via
Blackboard and will be checked with SafeAssign for plagiarism.
Not
to be confused with a book review or a book report, a literature review surveys
scholarly articles, books and other sources (e.g. dissertations, conference
proceedings) relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory,
providing a description, summary, and critical evaluation of each work. The
purpose is to offer an overview of significant literature published on a topic.
The
purpose of a literature review is to:
·
Place each work in the context of its contribution to the understanding
of the subject under review
·
Describe the relationship of each work to the others under
consideration
·
Identify new ways to interpret, and shed light on any gaps in, previous
research
·
Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies
·
Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort
·
Point the way forward for further research
·
Place one's original work (in the case of theses or dissertations) in
the context of existing literature
Literature
reviews should comprise the following elements:
·
An overview of the subject, issue or theory under consideration, along
with the objectives of the literature review
·
Division of works under review into categories (e.g. those in support of
a particular position, those against, and those offering alternative theses
entirely)
·
Explanation of how each work is similar to and how it varies from the
others
·
Conclusions as to which pieces are best considered in their argument,
are most convincing of their opinions, and make the greatest contribution to
the understanding and development of their area of research
In
assessing each piece, consideration should be given to:
·
Provenance—What are the author's credentials? Are the author's
arguments supported by evidence (e.g. primary historical material, case
studies, narratives, statistics, recent scientific findings)?
·
Objectivity—Is the author's perspective even-handed or prejudicial? Is
contrary data considered or is certain pertinent information ignored to prove
the author's point?
·
Persuasiveness—Which of the author's theses are most/least convincing?
·
Value—Are the author's arguments and conclusions convincing? Does the
work ultimately contribute in any significant way to an understanding of the
subject?
After
selecting a problem to investigate, you need to read all about your topic.
A literature review should place your question or problem in the context of
other work that has been done in the field. It would not be uncommon for you to
read parts of 20 or more studies.
First, a word of what NOT to do: Do not write an annotated
bibliography, which presents the sources one at a time and summarizes the
articles. Instead, you want to integrate and synthesize the works you have
read. Discuss the literature based on the dimensions of the problem that you
are investigating.
If
you are investigating an ongoing controversy, you might organize the
information into opposing camps, and highlight not only the disagreements in
conclusions, but also in assumptions, data, and methods.
Here
is an important point to note: you may not find material exactly on your topic.
Fine. Find related studies and findings. Again, your job is
both to tell what is known and what is not known, but simply speculated, or
theorized, about.
DO:
·
Present the basic theory / theories in this field.
·
Attempt to be exhaustive; this means thinking of all related angles.
·
Make sure you get the very latest research included -- for instance, in
many areas it would be common to cite literature from the last six
months.
·
Organize the literature to provide the contours of the field.
·
Use names and dates of authors you are using.
·
Paraphrase or use quotes.
·
Look at examples. Journals can be a good source for identifying what a
lit review is to look like.
·
Make sure the articles you are examining are research articles, and not
editorials or book reviews.
DO
NOT:
·
Think that you have to find something exactly on your topic -- if
there was something already done on it, we could both read that study instead
of your paper. Instead, think of the different components of your topic, and
find relevant material.
·
Plagiarize. This can be done in numerous ways, purposefully or
accidentally. It is a serious infraction on academic integrity and will be
treated as such. Three examples are drawn from Babbie (A-11):
"You cannot use another writer's exact words
without using quotation marks and giving a complete citation, which indicates
the source of the quotation such that your reader could locate the quotation in
the original context."
"It
is also not acceptable to edit or paraphrase another's words and present the
revised version as your own work."
"Finally,
it is not even acceptable to present another's ideas as your own -- even if you
use totally different words to express those ideas."
Finally,
you will want to consult with me if it has crossed your mind to use a paper
that you have written for another class.
This is referred to as “double-dipping.”
It is the attitude of at least some of us in political science that this
is not acceptable. I consider it a form
of academic dishonesty. While it is good
for students to have a substantive interest that they pursue in more than one
paper, this is to be distinguished from the scenario of submitting in two
classes the same paper. When in doubt, (a) err on the cautious side, and (b)
talk with me.