Assess the strengths and weaknesses of Foucault’s and Lukes’ respective conceptions of power Order Description - Font: Verdana 11pt - Page numbers should appear in the footer of the essay, in the middle - Political theory essay: use of 1st person is acceptable - Important to place the concept in its historical contexts (tell what the conceptions are, different thinkers around the concepts) - How is the concept explained by the people, and more importantly, what you think of the concepts? - Avoid simply state something, need to show it through evaluation and analysis. Use examples to demonstrate the point. What is of primary importance is the quality of your reasoning and your understanding of the arguments and positions you discuss. - Referencing: page number is preferred, if its a broad idea, no need for page number but a broader range of page number is preferred - Structure of the Essay: 1. Introduction: around 400 words 2. Main body: a. Context – situate the research question within its context and explain the relevance of this context (around 500 words) b. Provide a brief outline of the key literature Analyse the literature Who has said what and why? Do you agree? Justify your answer Provide examples Start bringing in your own argument and use examples to demonstrate and support it. Always bring in the opposing side to your argument. Demonstrate why your interpretation is stronger and more convincing. *For Foucault's weaknesses of his concept of power, could focus on Feminist's criticism of this. If there is not much readings for this, could focus on other thinkers as well. 3. Conclusion: 400 words Recommended readings (other readings will be upload later in my account) Ball, T. (1992). New Faces of Power. In T. Wartenberg, Rethinking Power (pp. 14-31). New York: State University of New York Press. Clegg, S. (1989). Post Structuralism, Sovereign Power and Disciplinary Power. London: Sage Schattschneider, E. (1960). The Semi-Sovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Smart, B. (1994). The Politics of Truth and the Problem of Hegemony. In B. Smart, & B. Smart (Ed.), Michel Foucault (1) Critical Assessments (pp. 208-219). London: Routledge. Wenman, M. A. (2005) – ‘Power’ in Political Concepts: A Reader and Guide. Iain Mackenzie (Ed.). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Boyne, R., 1990. Foucault And Derrida: The Other Side Of Reason. London: Unwin And Hyman Callinicos, A., 1991. Against Postmodernism: A Marxist Critique. Oxford: Polity. Power / Michel Foucault ; edited by James D. Faubion ; translated by Robert Hurley and others. Feminism and the final Foucault / edited by Dianna Taylor and Karen Vintges.? The forms of power : from domination to transformation / Thomas E. Wartenberg. - Critics on Luke’s Foucault and classical antiquity : power, ethics, and knowledge / Wolfgang Detel Up Against Foucault: Explorations of Some Tensions Between Foucault and Feminism / Caroline Ramazanoglu Reassessing Foucault: Power, Medicine and the Body / Colin Jones, Roy Porter Feminism, Foucault, and Embodied Subjectivit / Margaret A. McLaren Online source: Gaventa, J. (2011, January 10). Foucault: power is everywhere. Retrieved March 31, 2015, from Powercube: Understanding Power for Social Change LINK ONLINE http://www.powercube.net/other-forms-of-power/foucault-power-is-everywhere/ Gaventa, J. (2003, August 15). Power after Lukes: An overview of theories of power since Lukes and their application to development . Retrieved March 30, 2015, from PowerCube: http://www.powercube.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/power_after_lukes.pdf Hitler, A. (1969). Why The Second Reich Collapsed;. In A. Hitler, Mein Kampf (pp. 191-234). London: Hutchinson. LINK ONLINE http://genius.com/Adolf-hitler-chapter-10-why-the-second-reich-collapsed-annotated Lazzarato, M. (2006). From Biopower to Biopolitics . Tayloring Biotechnologie s , 2 (2), 11-20. LINK ONLINE http://www.generation-online.org/c/fcbiopolitics.htm Lycos, K. (2009, January 11). Foucault, Freedoma and Truth Emergence. Retrieved May 3, 2015, from Living Pholosophy: Collected Papers and Essays of Kymon Lycos LINK ONLINE http://www.kimonlycos.org/unpublished/foucault-freedom-and-truth-emergence Miller, F. (1998, July 1). Aristotle's Political Theory. Retrieved March 30, 2015, from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-politics/ Only accept other online sources from credible academic article or journal (no newspaper, online news etc) Assess the strengths and weaknesses of Foucault’s and Lukes’ respective conceptions of power Order Description - Font: Verdana 11pt - Page numbers should appear in the footer of the essay, in the middle - Political theory essay: use of 1st person is acceptable - Important to place the concept in its historical contexts (tell what the conceptions are, different thinkers around the concepts) - How is the concept explained by the people, and more importantly, what you think of the concepts? - Avoid simply state something, need to show it through evaluation and analysis. Use examples to demonstrate the point. What is of primary importance is the quality of your reasoning and your understanding of the arguments and positions you discuss. - Referencing: page number is preferred, if its a broad idea, no need for page number but a broader range of page number is preferred - Structure of the Essay: 1. Introduction: around 400 words 2. Main body: a. Context – situate the research question within its context and explain the relevance of this context (around 500 words) b. Provide a brief outline of the key literature Analyse the literature Who has said what and why? Do you agree? Justify your answer Provide examples Start bringing in your own argument and use examples to demonstrate and support it. Always bring in the opposing side to your argument. Demonstrate why your interpretation is stronger and more convincing. *For Foucault's weaknesses of his concept of power, could focus on Feminist's criticism of this. If there is not much readings for this, could focus on other thinkers as well. 3. Conclusion: 400 words Recommended readings (other readings will be upload later in my account) Ball, T. (1992). New Faces of Power. In T. Wartenberg, Rethinking Power (pp. 14-31). New York: State University of New York Press. Clegg, S. (1989). Post Structuralism, Sovereign Power and Disciplinary Power. London: Sage Schattschneider, E. (1960). The Semi-Sovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Smart, B. (1994). The Politics of Truth and the Problem of Hegemony. In B. Smart, & B. Smart (Ed.), Michel Foucault (1) Critical Assessments (pp. 208-219). London: Routledge. Wenman, M. A. (2005) – ‘Power’ in Political Concepts: A Reader and Guide. Iain Mackenzie (Ed.). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Boyne, R., 1990. Foucault And Derrida: The Other Side Of Reason. London: Unwin And Hyman Callinicos, A., 1991. Against Postmodernism: A Marxist Critique. Oxford: Polity. Power / Michel Foucault ; edited by James D. Faubion ; translated by Robert Hurley and others. Feminism and the final Foucault / edited by Dianna Taylor and Karen Vintges.? The forms of power : from domination to transformation / Thomas E. Wartenberg. - Critics on Luke’s Foucault and classical antiquity : power, ethics, and knowledge / Wolfgang Detel Up Against Foucault: Explorations of Some Tensions Between Foucault and Feminism / Caroline Ramazanoglu Reassessing Foucault: Power, Medicine and the Body / Colin Jones, Roy Porter Feminism, Foucault, and Embodied Subjectivit / Margaret A. McLaren Online source: Gaventa, J. (2011, January 10). Foucault: power is everywhere. Retrieved March 31, 2015, from Powercube: Understanding Power for Social Change LINK ONLINE http://www.powercube.net/other-forms-of-power/foucault-power-is-everywhere/ Gaventa, J. (2003, August 15). Power after Lukes: An overview of theories of power since Lukes and their application to development . Retrieved March 30, 2015, from PowerCube: http://www.powercube.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/power_after_lukes.pdf Hitler, A. (1969). Why The Second Reich Collapsed;. In A. Hitler, Mein Kampf (pp. 191-234). London: Hutchinson. LINK ONLINE http://genius.com/Adolf-hitler-chapter-10-why-the-second-reich-collapsed-annotated Lazzarato, M. (2006). From Biopower to Biopolitics . Tayloring Biotechnologie s , 2 (2), 11-20. LINK ONLINE http://www.generation-online.org/c/fcbiopolitics.htm Lycos, K. (2009, January 11). Foucault, Freedoma and Truth Emergence. Retrieved May 3, 2015, from Living Pholosophy: Collected Papers and Essays of Kymon Lycos LINK ONLINE http://www.kimonlycos.org/unpublished/foucault-freedom-and-truth-emergence Miller, F. (1998, July 1). Aristotle's Political Theory. Retrieved March 30, 2015, from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-politics/ Only accept other online sources from credible academic article or journal (no newspaper, online news etc)
03 December, 2015
CRISIS and DISASTER MANAGEMENT (TOU 3011M) ’ 1. Ensure that you have read the DIRECTIONS to STUDENTS outlined on front page of assessment brief. Note ‘terms of trade’ and in particular the penalties for non-compliance. 2. Word limit: 2500 +/- 10%. 3. Report format. At this stage you should concentrate on pulling your material together. During week 9 an assessment lecture is scheduled at which we will look at formatting the material incorporating it into the report. 4. Ensure that you READ the BRIEF. In particular note: (i) select an organisation which is IN CRISIS or HEADING TOWARDS CRISIS (ii) select a PRIVATE SECTOR ORGANISATION 5. One or two of you have already asked if you may look at a public sector organisation or an organisation which has been in crisis and is now in the early or latter stages of recovery. Please note: (i) both options require a slightly different approach and set of considerations – much of which will be considered in the context of ‘disaster’ next term. Therefore, if you wish to so proceed, (ii) please check with me, Martin K, whether your proposal is suitable. You may email me a brief proposal. You will then receive from me written approval/authorisation to proceed. Otherwise. (iii) You will be expected to proceed in accordance with para 4 (i) and (ii) above. 6. Key to good assessment: TAKE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSMENT: CONTAIN, MANAGE AND LIMIT THE EXTENT OF MATERIAL USED (remember – 2500 words) • Make use of appendices for supplementary / background material. • Place only material relevant to crisis in the main body of report • Remember that reference to ‘antecedents’ on the assessment brief refers to background to crisis and should go in to report • Organisational background etc… should go into appendices • If your organisation is part of an ‘umbrella’ corporation eg Costa Cruises v Carnival Corporation – ensure that you distinguish and make clear whether the crisis is affecting the organisation or the corporation (note: In this case, it would be advisable to include in the appendices, an organisational flow chart showing the relationship between the organisation and the ‘umbrella’ corporation) • Ensure you have YOUR working definition of crisis • Ensure that you have a clear understanding of the purpose and objectives of crisis management for YOUR chosen organisation • Have you identified and isolated the PIVOTAL crisis? • Have you identified the PHASE of crisis (one only)? (note: do not waste time / words in the report listing all stages – only ONE phase needs to be addressed. If you wish to present a chronology through the phases – although not necessary – you should do so within the appendices) • Have you identified the source of the crisis as External or Internal? • Have you identified the TURNING POINT (one only)? • Have you identified key STAKEHOLDERS affected by the crisis (no more than two)? • (note: feel free to make use of appendices to list all stakeholders if you wish – although not necessary) • Have you identified TWO known threats ie those which have given rise to current crisis? • Have you identified TWO further potential threats (perceived) ie those which could arise from current crisis? 7. Remember the SIGNIFCANCE AND IMPLICATIONS of your interpretation above: (i) Your proposals for business continuity in your organisation will hinge upon the issues highlighted in para 6 above (ii) Further, in assessing the significance and implications, you will be forced to think about and evaluate what has happened and how best to avoid it happening again thereby formulating proposals and justification for business continuity 8. CONNECT AND LINK the crisis to the business continuity proposal The crisis (externa/internal – Phase – Turning Point) ? Impact (stakeholders) ? Proposals for resolution ? Evaluation – justification – recommendations – conclusion ? GOOD, FULL and PURPOSEFUL REPORT 9. DATING the report: The submission date is 11 December 1200 noon. Given that many organisations are currently in the news and are likely to remain so for some time to come, you are advised to identify a ‘cut off date’ for your report so as to emphasise that the report deals with issues only up until a certain date – I would suggest one week before the official hand in date. You will need to include this in the report’s terms of reference section. 10. Assessment criteria: Ensure that you follow the criteria on assessment brief.
02 December, 2015
