Next week is my midterm, which I don’t know if I should be nervous for. I think I’ll be alright. Anyway, my sixth class was on Tuesday, and like with writing this post I was also a few minutes late. I didn’t really miss anything which is good but I’ve still go some knowledge to share.
This week was focused on the role of political parties and special interest groups. Obviously both are very connected.
I don’t believe I’ll have to go into the basics of what political parties are/what they do, so I’ll skip to the more interesting bits, especially when it comes to my professor’s and fellow students’ comments made throughout class.
So when it comes to classifying what type of party one is we looked at two terms: Missionary parties (also known as ideological parties) and Broker parties (also known as Pragmatic parties). The former having a commitment to a specific ideology with the want to convert people, kinda like Jehovah’s Witnesses hence the “missionary” title (his example not mine). The latter group being less about ideology and more about changing their party positions to maximize votes (they are also called Catch-all parties). I’m sure most of you are already familiar with these but I didn’t know that specific classifications existed.
Next we learned about party systems; one party, two party, you get the gist. So what was interesting here was when we were talking about one party systems, my professor brought up Cuba, North Korea, and China as examples. While I know outside of the classroom setting this isn’t a negative, but he was very negative about one party systems in general and didn’t go into the nuances of how the systems works in Cuba, North Korea (which is a bit difficult considering everything), and how china does have multiple parties, just one is more dominant. Which is what a one party system is, top heavy, again this was his definition.
When China was brought up as an example there was a strange debate on whether China is an aristocracy or oligarchy because most decisions are made by Xi Jinping and a few others. he claimed that Xi Jinping has massive influence on the population. He proceeded to ask the class if they believed the Chinese Communist Party (his words) governs in their own interests or the people’s. Most students said own while I quietly said the people’s…
The terms “de facto” and “de jure” were discussed next. De facto meaning one party is dominant while de jure is only one party being allowed. He used Cuba and North Korea as de jure examples. Again, I know Cuba and North Korea are fine but the way he relayed this information was very biased to the typical Liberal Democracy system and acting like Cuba and North Korea are under some totalitarian dictatorship.
A girl in my class is from Türkiye and she talked about how the current President is in a coalition of sorts with the fascist part of Türkiye. My professor sort of sputtered at her terminology and stated he hates to use the fascist since it’s very heavy, but the girl was insistent on the fact they were fascist and therefore the current president of Türkiye is way more far right than our professor was making him out to be. Germany was brought up because I think they also have a coalition going on, and proceeded they are a fairly left wing government (Green Party). I don’t know much about current day German political parties so I won’t say if I believe it’s true but considering how they’re handling the was I’d say that their principles are a bit all over the place.
Then we talked about no party systems which was easy and self explanatory; Saudi Arabia was used as an example.
We ended the class talking about interest groups and what not, nothing too crazy, and then a five minute debate. Two people were chosen as Pro marijuana and the other two were opposed. It was a weird debate and just kind of frustrating.
Anyway I’ll conclude with a comment my professor made when it came to Joe Biden and Donald Trump: “I’m non-partisan, but I don’t think either are that great. Also make sure to watch the State of The Union address.”
Had to write this quickly because I’ve got a DnD session really soon.
Do they not provide a module handbook with that kind of detail? Do you not get a list of questions to answer before each class? Maybe it’s subject-specific, but it seems strange not to give an indication of what content is coming up.
None of that unfortunately, I have to do it on my own. At most we’ve been told to just read the textbook.
That’s very interesting. Do you have access to an online library? Like JSTOR, etc?
I do! My university gives access to JSTOR
That’s good.
Does each chapter in your textbook discuss a number of authors? Or include footnotes/endnotes/organised references/an organised list of references?
(I’m being a bit presumptuous here in assuming that you want to hear my advice on this. Feel free to tell me that you don’t, if you don’t!)
Yes. They reference other books, papers, author’s, etc. But of course to read the full pieces that are mentioned I’d have to read them separately on my own time. When these passages site a source usually it’s in short quotes or a simplified summary. But, yes I’m definitely interested in any advice, it’s one of the reasons why I post about the ongoing in my class!
Happy to give some advice.
It would be hard to read every reference in full! You could create your own targeted reading list by listing the writers, ideas, and theories, etc, that are discussed the most frequently, or listing the writers who discuss ideas that you find interesting.
Once you have these names or theories, search for the authors’ main or relevant works and/or relevant articles in the library (digital library might be easier, but some texts might not be available online). You can go directly to JSTOR, etc, and also search Google scholar and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
When it comes to each source, start with the introductuon, then read any other chapter (if a book) or section (if an article/paper, or a chapter in a book) that strikes your interest, and possibly the conclusion. Write one paragraph in your own words to explain the argument. In that paragraph or a separate paragraph, criticise the argument. Put any quotes in quotation marks with a page/para pinpoint! (You don’t want to forget and be accused of plagiarism.)
If you have time or if it really clicks with you, you can read the whole source. But be picky!
This kind of notetaking will serve two purposes. (1) It will provide excellent material for you to rewrite in your assignments. If good writing is re-writing, and you’ve already written about a topic beforehand, you’re essays will start on a stronger footing. (2) You will practice explaining, making, and defending arguments in a low-stakes setting, exercising the muscles with which you’ll do this on the fly in classes.
You might want to look up Eduard de Bono. He has some ‘lateral thinking’ tips (maybe seven ‘models’). Applying these models to what you read (when you write the explanatory and critical paragraph(s)) can help you to develop an interesting and rigorous critique. Daniel Dennett’s Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking is also good in this regard (although this is adding even more to the reading list—sorry!) and is full of short chapters, which can mostly be read as standalone pieces.
When it comes to assignments (midterms), your reading wants to be much more focused on the topic at hand. This is when you can revisit some articles that you need to read in full.
I’ll keep a look out, anyway, but tag me if you talk about your midterms. You won’t be able to be too detailed when explaining your task without doxxing yourself. But I may be able to give some more relevant advice. The key is to follow the instructions carefully. But I may have some helpful tricks, depending on the type of assignment.