Archive for the ‘fabio’ Category
Nicholas Rowland is an associate professor of sociology at Penn State – Altoona. He is a sociologist of science and an Indiana alumnus. In this guest post, he asks for your help in exploring how social scientists imagine the state.
Greetings Orgtheory community,
I write to ask for help, help in hunting-down states. I am in the middle of compiling a list of different state concepts from all over academia. By “state concepts” (specifically plural) I am referring of concepts that appear to be crafted according to the formula “[select key term] state” wherein “[s]tate activity related to [select key term] becomes the definition of the self-referential term” (2015). Many of you are doubtlessly familiar with these sorts of concepts, for example, Adams’ “spectacular state” or Karl’s “petro state” of Guss’s “festive state” or Geertz’s “theater state” and so on. While some of these terms are esoteric and perhaps only used once or only by one scholar, others – such as “modern state,” “bureaucratic state” or “administrative state” – are so commonplace they almost appear to have no progenitor at all.
If you are familiar with concepts not featured below, please do leave a quick comment with the name of the concept and, if possible, some idea of where it comes from – even a vague idea of its origins helps. So far, this is the list of state concepts, and “thank you in advance” to those who offer to help.
[Ed. – It gets real statey and fun below this page break… you’ve been warned.]
In its particular contribution to “jihadi security studies,” The Management of Savagery provides what Will McCants and Jarret Brachman call the “playbook” for what is referred in these writings as “regional jihad”: the attempt to seize territory within the Muslim world and establish a self-governing Islamic state in a sea of hostile opponents backed by the West.
In order to do this, Naji’s strategic doctrine echoes Mao’s familiar three-phase theory of revolutionary warfare in which the insurgent organization can be in one or all phases simultaneously. In the first phase, the Islamist insurgent actor seeks to create or exploit “regions of savagery” through violent or shocking actions that collapse central authority or state control via “damage and exhaustion.” The second phase establishes primitive forms of government to “manage” such “regions of savagery,” which he claims would be accepted by shell-shocked people desperate for security. These forces would gradually expand government services while engaging in even more shocking violence in order to extend the “regions of savagery” and defend them. The final phase is the transition from the “administration of savagery” in various regions to a fully governed Islamic state under a Salafist version of Islamic law.
What is distinctive in Naji’s doctrine is his emphasis on shocking and spectacular violence as an asymmetric warfare strategy—a jihadist shock doctrine. One of most important lessons of Robert Tabler’s The War of the Flea is that insurgent actions must always mobilize a population to side with their cause. In a chapter dedicated to “Using Violence,” Naji emphasizes that shocking violence is not only effective for recruitment and instilling fear, but that it is the primary means to create a society-wide crisis that will polarize the population and drag everyone into the battle. Naji contends that, “We must make this battle very violent, such that death is a heartbeat away, so that the two groups will realize that entering this battle will frequently lead to death. That will be a powerful motive for the individual to choose to fight in the ranks of the people of truth in order to die well, which is better than dying for falsehood and losing both this world and the next.”
Interesting – the strategy is to make death so likely that you care about how you will die, so you are attracted to triumphalist ideologies. Niva’s essays take a Weberian turn. After ISIS creates perpetual crisis, then comes the phase of pacification and monopolization of violence.
Via Shamus – a website with a big data set on the history of the New York Philharmonic:
The New York Philharmonic played its first concert on December 7, 1842. Since then, it has merged with the New York Symphony, the New/National Symphony, and had a long-running summer season at New York’s Lewisohn Stadium. This Performance History database documents all known concerts of all of these organizations, amounting to more than 20,000 performances. The New York Philharmonic Leon Levy Digital Archives provides an additional interface for searching printed programs alongside other digitized items such as marked music scores, marked orchestral parts, business records, and photos.
In an effort to make this data available for study, analysis, and reuse, the New York Philharmonic joins organizations like The Tate and the Cooper-Hewitt in making its own contribution to the Open Data movement.
The metadata, which is released under the Creative Commons Public Domain CC0 licence, is located on the New York Philharmonic’s GitHub page.
Sounds like a feast for a musical orgtheorist. Go to it!
On Twitter, Brad Spahn asked:
What would you change about your dept to make faculty & grad students happier and more productive? Hold U-wide rules fixed.cc @fabiorojas
— Brad Spahn (@BradSpahn) March 20, 2015
I actually had two answers: First, eliminate the monthly/weekly faculty meeting. But our department already did that!! Except for “big” issues like hiring or curriculum rewrites, we leave most decision making to our elected executive committee. Also, we genuinely try to reduce required meetings.
My real answer, though, was “make all dissertations three chapters.” One of the biggest time wasters in academia is this belief that dissertations are the huge, 500 page master works. That is WRONG, but you do get bonus points for being brilliant in a thesis. The REAL purpose of the dissertation is to show the faculty and wider scientific and scholarly community that you have (a) mastered the current literature/techniques of your field and (b) you can produce new analysis and knowledge. Thus, the standard for a dissertation is “scholarly competence,” not “highest level mastery.” This is true for all programs from the most humble to the top of the profession.
Once you buy that, then the question becomes: what format is the most efficient way to teach scientific competence? Three chapters is probably the best. Since half of PhD don’t teach or do research, there is no point in doing more. Even when people go into university positions, almost all science disciplines require articles. History is the only social science that is not primarily article based. Even in the humanities, many fields are article based (philosophy, linguistics, etc). And even if you are in a book oriented field, like English, why not write a few articles unless you are gunning for the R1 market?
The policy of “three article default” makes people happier and productive. Students have a concrete expectation. There is a stopping point to the dissertation. If they do academia, the format will help them. It is easier on faculty in that we no longer need to manage these mongo dissertations. More time for other work.
Brad thought I was slamming book. I am not – I have written two academic books! But most people don’t do what I do for a living so why not let them default to three articles? And remember, it’s a default – not a rule. If you really, really have a book in your dissertation, you can do it. But most students would be way happier doing three articles.