How is political responsibility different from moral responsibility (or liability)? Can you be politically responsible for solving a problem if you were not morally responsible for causing it? Why or why not? Please refer to Iris Marion Young and/or Clarissa Hayward in your answer.

POG 431: Power, Domination, and Resistance

Instructions:
Please answer TWO of the following questions. Your answer to EACH question should be no more than 2 pages (double-spaced, 12-point font, 1-inch margins).
List the number of the question you’re responding to before each answer. Please submit your exam on D2L (Assessments Assignments).

Late exams will lose a third of a letter grade per day. Please note that I use Turnitin.com, a plagiarism-detection service (see the Syllabus for the course Turnitin policy).

1. In Power: A Radical View, Steven Lukes argues that the third-dimensional view of power applies in cases of “latent conflict, which consists in a contradiction between the interests of those exercising power and the real interests of those they exclude. The latter may not express or even be conscious of their interests, but…the identification of those [real] interests always rests on empirically
supportable and refutable hypotheses.” Is Lukes correct that we can identify the real interests of the subjects of power, even when they may not express or be conscious of them? Why or why not?

2. How is political responsibility different from moral responsibility (or liability)? Can you be politically responsible for solving a problem if you were not morally responsible for causing it? Why or why not? Please refer to Iris Marion Young and/or Clarissa Hayward in your answer.

3. A number of the writers we have read this semester have discussed power structures and structural change. Which writer do you think offers the most convincing account of how to change structures we consider unjust? Why do you think it is more convincing than other accounts we have read?

4. Pick two writers we have read this semester who disagree on an important point about power. Clearly describe their disagreement and the position that each writer takes on the issue in question. Then explain who you think makes the more compelling argument, and why.

5. John Searle and Pierre Bourdieu each attempt to answer a similar question: “How do we get away with it?” (in Searle’s terms), or why “the established order…perpetuates itself so easily” (in Bourdieu’s terms). What exactly does this question mean for each writer? How do they each answer it? Whose answer do you find more convincing, and why?

6. In “Lecture Two” from Power/Knowledge, Michel Foucault says that he wants to focus less on the ideologies that justify and explain power, and more on the ways in which power is “effectively embodied in a certain number of local, regional, material institutions.” In Discipline and Punish, he works to put this plan into action. Why does Foucault think that this change of focus is valuable to the study of power? Do you agree with him on this point? Why or why not?

Writing Tips
Each of your answers must have a clear and explicit thesis. The thesis is the central claim that the answer is advancing. While you do not have to directly say, “In this answer, I will argue X,” your central claim has to be clear from the beginning. Every part of your
answer should advance your thesis, whether by supporting it with arguments or by refuting counter-arguments. Because your space is limited, you must use it wisely. Anything that does not support your specific claims or push forward your argument is a waste of space.
A thesis has to be arguable—that is, an interesting claim that it is possible to argue against. “Iris Marion Young writes about structural injustice” is not a good thesis. “Iris Marion Young’s argument about structural injustice is right/wrong for the following
reasons…” is potentially a good thesis, depending on how you support it. You do not need to do additional research beyond the assigned reading. You do need to refer closely to and cite the relevant course readings, because they will offer the most
important evidence in support of your thesis.

Be aware of the University’s plagiarism policy. (Plagiarism and other academic misconduct is defined here in Appendix A:
https://www.ryerson.ca/content/dam/senate/policies/pol60.pdf). Plagiarism can cause you to receive a 0 for the assignment, and can also lead to more serious penalties, such as an F for the course or even expulsion from the University. In general, plagiarism is
passing off someone else’s work as your own. You can avoid this by citing your sources.
If you are using a direct quotation, cite it, using the page number. If you are paraphrasing an argument from one of the writers, make that clear in your text, and cite the page number of the passage you are paraphrasing. You can use parenthetical or footnote citations, as long as you’re consistent in the style you use.

Citation for direct quotation:
Foucault writes that “the power in the hierarchized surveillance of the disciplines is not possessed as a thing, or transferred as a property; it functions like a piece of machinery.”1
[When citing a text you’ve already cited]: Foucault adds that “‘it is the apparatus as a whole that produces ‘power.’”2
[It’s okay if you want to use a different citation style, such as parenthetical references in the text. Just be consistent, and make sure to cite everything you quote.]
Citation for paraphrase:
In Discipline and Punish, Foucault argues that no one can be said to possess disciplinary power, even when it seems as though a given person occupies the top of the disciplinary hierarchy.3
1 Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, trans. Alan Sheridan (New York: Vintage, 1977), 177.
2 Foucault, Discipline and Punish, 177.
3 Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, trans. Alan Sheridan (New York: Vintage, 1977), 177.