Lesson Report:
Title
Power, Rules, and Legitimacy: From Campus Case Studies to Political Authority
In this online seminar, students synthesized a multi-week unit on power by analyzing real, visible examples of power on campus, then mapping each example to rules, enforcement, punishment, and compliance. The session distinguished organizational rules from public policy (and the state’s monopoly on force), and closed by introducing legitimacy as the bridge between compliance-by-punishment and compliance-by-shared values—setting up next week’s shift to ideology.
Attendance
– Present at start: 15 (formed into 4 breakout groups)
– Mentioned absent: 3 (students reported their partners from last week were not present)
– Connectivity notes:
– 1 student briefly disconnected and was re-added to a breakout room
– 1 participant appeared to leave mid-session (one report-back group was short a member)
Topics Covered (chronological)
1) Opening and framing
– Modality: First online seminar on Zoom.
– Objective: Conclude unit on “powerâ€� in personal/institutional contexts and pivot toward governmental and abstract political dimensions.
– Logistics:
– Re-enabled screen sharing for student photo presentations.
– Shared the Telegram Group B link in chat so students missing access could join.
2) Share-outs: “Where is power visible on campus?� (photo-based)
– Activity structure: Students presented last week’s campus power photos, sharing image + interpretation. Aim: build a concrete catalog of rules and power relations we can analyze.
– Representative examples and instructor synthesis:
– Department/Program authority: A department head who sets common requirements and standards (e.g., for FYS), with authority to pass/fail and shape syllabi and procedures. Emphasized upward authority chain for appeals.
– Add/Drop forms: Recurrent theme; faculty control over whom to accept reinforces gatekeeping power.
– Library rules: Quiet/cleanliness expectations; norms backed by escalating sanctions (reminders, removal by staff, security, ultimately police if required). Flagged as a prime case for compliance analysis.
– Institutional reputation (invisible power): University ranking/reputation confers advantages (jobs, status) and motivates students to comply with demands to access those benefits.
– Shared Service/Registrar queue: Administrative power to block online registration for unpaid tuition or unsigned annexes, visibly expressed through queues and students’ willingness to wait.
– Digital devices/internet: Access to information/action (from study to fundraising to cybercrime) confers power; instructor linked this to a political definition of power as getting outcomes even when others resist.
3) Quick review: Power, rules, and enforcement
– Working definition of power: The ability to get what you want by getting others to do things they may not want to do.
– Rules require enforceability: A “ruleâ€� without credible enforcement is weak.
– Enforcement: Using sanctions to induce compliance.
– Compliance has two drivers:
– Fear of punishment (deterrence)
– Shared values/benefits (normative agreement that the rule serves a legitimate purpose)
4) Library as a compliance case study
– Why follow “be quietâ€�?
– Punishment: Warnings, removal, security escalation, possibly police at the extreme.
– Shared purpose: Collective benefit of a quiet study space; students accept the rule as reasonable and pro-social.
5) Types of rules: Organizational vs. public policy
– Organizational rules (e.g., course deadlines):
– Punishment bounded by the organization (grades, probation, removal). The university cannot itself use violence; it can call law enforcement only to enforce removal, not to mete out its own punishments.
– Public policy (law and the state):
– State retains the monopoly on legitimate force. Sanctions can escalate to fines, arrest, and forcible compliance.
– Illustrative mini-quiz:
– Professor moves an essay deadline: Organizational rule (sanctions: grade penalties, administrative review; no jail).
– Mandatory vehicle insurance (OSAGO) noncompliance: Public policy (fines; persistent refusal can escalate to detention/enforcement by police).
6) Breakout activity: Analyze one chosen photo through the rule-compliance lens
– Instructions (10 minutes, groups of ~4):
– Pick one photo/example.
– Answer:
1) What is the rule in this example?
2) Is it de jure (written), de facto (social/unwritten), or both?
3) Who enforces it?
4) What is the punishment for noncompliance?
5) What drives compliance (punishment vs. shared values/benefits)?
– Tech note: One student with connectivity issues was re-assigned to their group.
7) Group report-backs (selected highlights)
– Group: Classroom/professor authority
– Specific rule: Submit assignments by the deadline.
– Type: De jure (syllabus, handbook), de facto (widely expected).
– Enforcers: Professor → Department/Program → Division → University admin → Ministry of Education (appeal chain).
– Punishments: Grade penalties, course failure, possible academic standing consequences.
– Compliance drivers: Avoiding penalties; perceived need for orderly workflow (grading logistics), plus “desire to learn.â€�
– Group: Kitchen/cafeteria power
– Two distinct rules:
1) Pricing/transaction rule: Pay set prices (scarce on-campus alternatives increase dependence).
– Enforcement: Cashiers, staff, cameras/security; theft punished (up to expulsion or termination for staff).
– Compliance: Avoiding sanctions; moral norms against stealing.
2) Tray return/cleanliness rule (social norm):
– Enforcement: Primarily social pressure; staff reminders.
– Punishment: Social disapproval; minimal formal sanction.
– Compliance: Consideration for community comfort/order; self-interest in maintaining a usable space.
– Group: Shared Service Center (e.g., tuition/annex/registration)
– Rule(s): Pay tuition by deadlines; sign the annex by the posted date to enable registration.
– Type: De jure (contracts, posted deadlines, student handbook).
– Enforcers: Administration/Shared Service; IT systems (registration locks); security if needed for access enforcement.
– Punishments: Late fees (e.g., 2000/4000/6000 KGS tiers), registration blocks; persistent refusal can escalate to removal procedures.
– Compliance: Strongly driven by avoiding monetary loss and loss of access; reinforced by signed contracts.
– Group: Gym/sport requirement and coach authority
– Rule(s): Obey coach instructions during class; complete 4 semesters of sport to graduate.
– Type: De facto (coach’s classroom authority), de jure (general education requirement, student handbook, program rules).
– Enforcers: Coach → Gen Ed/Admin → Higher admin/president’s office (if escalated).
– Punishments: Fail the requirement; delay in graduation; pay for additional semesters.
– Compliance: Health/benefit motives; social and administrative pressure; graduation requirement.
8) Legitimacy mini-lecture and scenario
– Scenario: Security allows one student in after closing (22:00) but denies the next student at 22:01.
– Student reactions: Perceived unfairness/discrimination; inconsistent rule application.
– Concept: Legitimacy = widespread acceptance that an authority should hold power.
– Implications:
– When legitimacy declines, authorities must rely more on force to obtain compliance.
– Overreliance on coercion further erodes legitimacy, increasing instability and potential for political violence/revolution.
– Transition: This closes the “powerâ€� unit; next week begins “ideology,â€� exploring why different actors use power differently.
9) Homework and closing logistics
– Homework: One reading (to be posted on e-course tonight); read by Tuesday. No written assignment this time.
– Modality: Next week will also be on Zoom.
Actionable Items
Urgent (before posting class recording/resources)
– Post the assigned reading to e-course (as promised “tonightâ€�) and specify:
– Clear due date/time (by Tuesday’s class)
– Guiding questions to focus students on power/compliance/legitimacy as a bridge to ideology
– Confirm all students have joined the correct Telegram group; resend link in e-course announcement.
Before next session (48–72 hours)
– Create a simple gallery/thread of students’ “power on campusâ€� photos (Telegram/e-course) and note which ones will be reused in the next activity.
– Prepare brief slide/one-pager clarifying:
– De jure vs. de facto rules (with 2–3 campus examples)
– Organizational vs. public policy (with the enforcement ladder)
– Legitimacy definition and indicators (consistency, fairness, non-corruption)
– Anticipate Zoom logistics:
– Pre-assign breakout rooms to balance group sizes.
– Verify screen-share permissions for student presenters.
Longer-term or follow-up
– Attendance follow-up:
– Note 3 partners reported absent at the start; identify who was missing and record attendance.
– Check on the participant who appeared to leave mid-session; document participation status.
– Tech reliability:
– Address webcam instability/glitches prior to the next Zoom session.
– Curriculum bridge:
– Design the opening of the ideology unit to explicitly connect legitimacy and preferred uses of power (e.g., how ideologies justify different enforcement/compliance strategies).
Homework Instructions:
ASSIGNMENT #1: Reading — Transitioning from Power to Ideology
You will complete one reading to consolidate our unit on power (enforcement, compliance, and legitimacy) and prepare for next week’s shift into ideology—why people use power differently and what beliefs guide those choices.
Instructions:
1) Retrieve the reading:
– Log in and download the reading file posted on eCourse for this class. The instructor said it will be posted “tonight.â€�
– If you do not see it, check again later the same evening; if issues persist, notify the instructor.
2) Complete the reading before Tuesday’s class:
– Read actively and annotate. Your goal is to be ready to discuss how the text connects to our class conversation.
3) As you read, connect key course concepts from this lesson:
– Power: the ability to get what you want by making others do what they might not want to do.
– Rules and enforcement: how rules are backed by punishment; who enforces them.
– Compliance: why people follow rules—fear of punishment versus agreement with values and norms.
– Types of rules: organizational rules versus public policy; the state’s monopoly on legitimate force.
– Legitimacy: widespread agreement that an authority should have power; how inconsistent or unfair enforcement can erode legitimacy.
4) Use our AUCA examples as anchors while you read:
– Library quiet rules (punishment vs shared norms).
– Kitchenette pricing and tray return (formal vs social sanctions).
– Shared Services fines/annex and registration blocks (contractual enforcement, monetary penalties).
– Professor deadlines/assignments and the chain of authority.
– Sports requirement and coach authority (de jure requirements and de facto classroom norms).
– Security and closing time as a case of perceived fairness and legitimacy.
– As you encounter relevant ideas in the reading, jot a brief note linking the concept to at least two of these specific examples (for yourself; nothing to submit).
5) Prepare to discuss:
– Come ready to explain one place where the reading helps you better understand compliance (punishment vs shared values) in one AUCA example, and one place where it clarifies legitimacy or the loss of legitimacy.
– Bring 2–3 questions or points of confusion to raise in class. These can be about definitions (e.g., de jure vs de facto), cases, or how ideology might change how an authority uses power.
6) Time management:
– Plan enough time to read closely and annotate. Aim to finish by Monday night so you can review your notes briefly before Tuesday’s class.
Notes:
– There is no written submission for this assignment; you just need to complete the reading and be prepared to participate on Tuesday.