Lesson Report:
**Title: Using the Greed vs. Grievance Framework to Build Analytical Paragraphs on Political Violence**
In this session, students continued a multi‑day writing workshop focused on explaining political violence using the “greed vs. grievance� framework. The primary objective was not content mastery about specific conflicts, but learning how to construct strong political science paragraphs with a clear argument, relevant evidence, and explicit analysis. Students revised their earlier “political violence� paragraphs to sharpen topic sentences, select better evidence, and practice connecting that evidence logically to a greed/grievance claim.
—
### Attendance
– Explicitly mentioned as lacking a partner (implying absent today): **1 student** (Silon’s original partner; name not given in transcript).
– Additional note: **Kalmar and partner** are described as having “ran awayâ€� (i.e., left the room early rather than being absent from the start).
—
### Topics Covered (Chronological, with Detailed Activity Descriptions)
#### 1. Course Logistics and End-of-Semester Timeline
– **Remaining class meetings and final exam**
– Instructor noted that there are only a few meetings left: this Tuesday and Thursday, then the course is effectively finished except for the final exam.
– **Final exam date**: Tuesday the 16th.
– Framing: students will then be “ready for political scienceâ€� rather than just introduced to it.
– **Project submission**
– Students were reminded that a project must be **emailed** to the instructor after next Thursday.
– Emphasis: email submission is required so the instructor can track and manage projects in the inbox.
– **Next content focus**
– Next week’s focus will include **citations and quotations** for their written work.
—
#### 2. Re‑Grouping and Reconnecting with the Political Violence Paragraph
– **Re-forming pairs based on earlier assignment**
– Students were asked to **sit next to the partner** with whom they wrote a **political violence paragraph** two weeks ago.
– This paragraph was about **explaining an act of political violence** by a group, using the greed vs. grievance framework.
– **Partner adjustments**
– Students who did not remember their partner were instructed to **check Telegram** to see prior messages/document sharing.
– Example: Ali Noor’s partner identified as **Begimai** via Telegram records.
– Students who had been **absent** during the original paragraph-writing session (e.g., **Akinkan**) were reassigned to groups that already had drafts (e.g., working with **Soybegim and Ceylan**).
– It was explicitly noted that **Ceylan (Silon)** currently lacked a partner, hence the regrouping.
– Later, “Kalmar and … actually, they ran awayâ€� suggests two students left the room.
– **Transition back to topic**
– After some informal talk (room temperature, flu news, quarantined kindergartens), the instructor steered back to the main theme: **political violence, and greed vs. grievance** as a framework for explaining it.
—
#### 3. Conceptual Review: Why Political Violence? Greed vs. Grievance Framework
– **Central question revisited**
– Students were asked to recall the big question from late November:
– *Why do some people or groups decide to commit acts of political violence instead of using normal political means (elections, campaigning, etc.)?*
– The class had previously adopted a **two-part explanatory framework**:
– Groups use violence either primarily for **greed** or for **grievance**.
– **Defining “greedâ€� in this context**
– Instructor elicited definitions:
– Greed involves actions taken to gain **money**, **power**, and **valuable resources** for oneself (especially leaders), not for “the people.â€�
– Key conceptual point:
– If violence is motivated by **greed**, the **beneficiaries are the leaders and their close circle**, not average citizens or supporters.
– **Oil field example for greed**
– Hypothetical scenario:
– A militia with guns attacks an **oil field** in a resource-rich country.
– If the **reason** is that the leader and their allies want control over **oil extraction, refining, and selling** to generate money for themselves, this is a **greed-motivated attack**.
– Emphasis: controlling oil = controlling a huge revenue stream; **who pockets that revenue** distinguishes greed from grievance.
– **Defining “grievanceâ€�**
– If violence is motivated by **grievance**, it aims at **real political change** or addressing serious injustices, not personal enrichment.
– Grievances can include:
– Economic injustice (e.g., region producing oil remains extremely poor).
– Environmental harm (e.g., oil pollution poisoning rivers, causing disease and cancer).
– Political exclusion or oppression of minority groups.
– **Oil field example for grievance**
– Same oil-field scenario, different motivation:
– Suppose people living near the oil field **receive none of the profits** and live in deep poverty while the state earns huge revenue.
– Or workers and local residents suffer **toxic pollution** and health crises from refineries.
– In such cases, a group might attack oil infrastructure with the stated aim of **forcing reforms**—redistribution of revenues, clean‑up, or better regulation.
– This would be characterized as **violence driven by grievance**, not by a desire for personal wealth.
– **Pedagogical framing**
– Instructor emphasized that:
– The **final exam** will test the *skill* of using a framework (like greed vs. grievance) to **analyze a case**, not political violence content per se.
– The class is learning *how* to answer political science questions using structured frameworks.
—
#### 4. Writing Framework Refresher: Argument–Evidence–Analysis
– **Three-part paragraph structure**
– Review of the model for a strong political science paragraph:
1. **Argument**
– The **main idea** or **claim** of the paragraph, typically in the **first sentence** (topic sentence).
– May be **rephrased** or reinforced in a concluding sentence.
2. **Evidence**
– Concrete **examples, facts, sources, quotations, and citations** that support the argument.
3. **Analysis**
– The **logical explanation** linking the evidence to the argument—answering *how/why* each piece of evidence supports the claim.
– **Example topic sentence**
– Instructor provided a sample argument:
– “**The Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) was motivated by greed.**â€�
– This is praised as a **good topic sentence** because:
– It clearly signals what the paragraph will do: explain **why** the IMU was motivated by greed.
– There is no ambiguity about focus or direction.
– **Sample evidence (as given) and its problems**
– Evidence fragments presented:
– The leaders (X and Y) did not live in luxury.
– They were funded by the USA.
– Instructor points out:
– There are **some examples**, but as written, if these lines are all students submit, the paragraph is at best a **B–/C+**.
– The core weaknesses:
– **No explicit analysis** explaining how these facts prove greed.
– Vague connection to the concept of greed.
– Lack of **focus** and logical development.
– **Why analysis is essential**
– Without analysis, a reader is left asking:
– *What does this have to do with greed?*
– *How does “not living in luxuryâ€� or “being funded by the USAâ€� show greed?*
– Instructor stresses:
– **Proof lies in the analysis**, not in the raw facts alone.
– Students must **spell out the reasoning** that links each piece of evidence to the greed vs. grievance claim.
—
#### 5. Deepening the Concept: “Luxury� as an Indicator of Greed
– **Interactive definition of “luxuryâ€�**
– Students were asked: *What does it mean to live in luxury?*
– Elicited examples:
– Very **rich lifestyle**:
– Eating meat multiple times a day on a **golden plate**.
– A **big marble house**, expensive things most people cannot afford.
– **24‑hour access to water** in water-scarce regions.
– **Cleaning staff** and various domestic services.
– **Privileges** such as not being punished for parking violations.
– High-end **electronics** (multiple PlayStations/Xboxes, large home-theater setup).
– Joking mention of multiple **mistresses/girlfriends** as costly “luxury.â€�
– Conceptual point:
– Luxury items or lifestyles are things that are **too expensive or rare for the average person**.
– **Connecting luxury to greed**
– Instructor guided students through a reasoning chain:
1. **Observation**: IMU leaders live in **large mansions**, drive **sports cars**, their children wear **designer clothing**, etc.
2. **Inference about cost**:
– Such a mansion or lifestyle is **far beyond** the means of an average citizen in Uzbekistan.
3. **Source of funds**:
– Leaders likely did not earn this through **normal lawful business** (e.g., an iPhone shop), but via **money associated with the violent organization**—looting, illicit trade, external funding, etc.
4. **Distribution of benefits**:
– If leaders use organizational funds to **enrich themselves**, while rank-and-file members or civilians **remain poor**, this strongly suggests the organization is **motivated by greed**.
– Distinction emphasized:
– Receiving funds (e.g., from the USA) is *not automatically* greed.
– What matters is **how the money is used**:
– If used to improve conditions for people or pursue political goals → more in line with **grievance**.
– If used to **buy mansions, cars, luxury goods** for leaders → **greed indicator**.
—
#### 6. Hypothesis Formation: Rewriting Students’ Topic Sentences
– **Introducing “hypothesisâ€�**
– Term defined as a **proposed explanation** or claim that the paragraph will test/support.
– In this context, the hypothesis is the **topic sentence** about a specific violent act and whether it was motivated by greed or grievance.
– **Task: standardized topic sentence**
– Students were asked to:
– Return to the paragraph they wrote with their partner on political violence.
– Ensure they have:
– A **specific group** (e.g., Taliban, IMU, cartels).
– A **specific event** (single attack, takeover, riot, etc., not a whole decades-long conflict).
– A clear claim that the group’s action was motivated **either by greed or by grievance**.
– Write this as a **one-sentence topic sentence**.
– **Clarifications and constraints**
– Students initially suggested more complex formulations (e.g., “greed plus grievanceâ€� or “grievance but later greed outcomesâ€�).
– Instructor’s guidance:
– For this **exercise and this paragraph**, choose **one primary motive** (greed or grievance) to sharpen the analysis.
– Nuanced “mixed motivesâ€� or counterarguments can be handled later in fuller essays.
– **Examples of students’ topic sentences (with instructor feedback)**
– **Taliban case(s)**
– Student 1: Taliban motivated by **greed**—instructor notes they must specify **which event**, e.g., the **2021 capture of Kabul** or a particular bombing.
– Student 2: Taliban motivated by **grievance** in 2021 capture of Kabul—acceptable topic sentence once event is clearly specified.
– **Mexican cartel example**
– Student: Cartel actions motivated by **greed**.
– Instructor feedback: Narrow to **one specific event** (e.g., a particular assassination or clash with police).
– **Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU)**
– Multiple groups worked with IMU examples:
– General “actionsâ€� motivated by greed—again asked to narrow to **one specific action**, such as the **kidnapping of Japanese hikers** near Batken (transcription: “Baskanâ€�).
– **Ethnic riots and protests**
– Uzbek participation in the **2010 Osh riots** described as motivated by **greed** (students focusing on looting/property aspects).
– Another pair focused on the **2010 Osh events** as motivated by **grievance** (corruption, injustice) depending on side/interpretation.
– Instructor consistently reinforced:
– **Event specificity** and a clear **greed vs. grievance selection** are essential for a strong topic sentence.
—
#### 7. Framework of Indicators: Operationalizing Greed vs. Grievance
– **Universal indicators**
– Instructor introduced a set of **“indicatorsâ€�**—questions that can be applied to **any case** to infer whether violence was driven more by greed or grievance.
– Emphasis: these indicators are **universal**; they do **not** name any specific country or conflict, and can be reused across cases.
– **Indicators of greed**
1. **Looting**
– Definition: **stealing physical goods** during unrest—breaking into shops, homes, museums, and taking items, money, cars, etc.
– If violence is accompanied by widespread looting, it suggests **personal material gain** is a key motive.
– Student question about **“racketâ€�**:
– Instructor noted “racketâ€� can mean various things (including chaotic noise or criminal schemes), but looting specifically refers to **taking goods during disorder**.
2. **Targeting resource centers instead of political centers**
– Do armed groups attack:
– **Resource-rich sites** (oil fields, diamond mines, valuable trade routes), or
– **Political institutions** (parliament, presidential palace, ministries)?
– Priority on controlling **revenue-generating assets** is a **greed signal**.
3. **Leaders pocketing most of the money**
– Indicators:
– Leaders suddenly display **wealth** out of proportion to their background.
– Evidence of **secret bank accounts** (e.g., millions in Switzerland).
– Suggests the organization’s violent activities are being used to **enrich leaders**, not advance public causes.
4. **Violations of human rights / targeting civilians**
– If a group **routinely attacks random civilians**, abuses human rights, and uses indiscriminate violence, this is often connected to predation rather than principled political struggle.
– It does not prove greed alone, but considered an **indicator** pointing in that direction, especially combined with looting and leader enrichment.
– **Indicators of grievance**
1. **Consistent articulation of political demands**
– Question: Does the group **consistently explain** why it uses violence in political terms?
– E.g., repeatedly demanding:
– End to corruption, regime change, land reform, minority rights, etc.
– Consistency over time (not ad hoc or constantly shifting excuses) suggests a **grievance-driven** motivation.
2. **Selective targeting**
– Do they focus attacks on:
– **Government buildings**, military installations, police stations (high political/military value), or
– **Random civilians** (buses, markets, etc.)?
– **Careful selection** of targets associated with the political opponent (state or specific armed actors) signals **political goals**, i.e., grievance.
3. **Voluntary recruitment**
– How are fighters recruited?
– **Volunteers** motivated by belief in the cause and paid little or nothing vs.
– **Mercenaries** (highly paid outsiders) or **forcibly recruited** fighters (press‑ganged, threatened families).
– A movement whose fighters join largely **voluntarily** because they believe in the group’s ideals is more likely grievance-driven.
– Heavy reliance on forced recruitment or paid mercenaries is more typical of **greed‑based** or purely opportunistic groups.
4. **Willingness to negotiate and accept peace deals**
– If the group is willing to:
– **Negotiate**, accept **compromises**, and sign **peace agreements** to achieve political aims, it suggests their main goal is **policy or regime change**, not perpetual plunder.
– If the group **repeatedly rejects peace deals** that address their political complaints, it may signal that their **real motive is maintaining profitable violence** (tilting toward greed).
– **Key methodological point**
– The **questions (indicators)** stay the **same** across cases.
– The **answers** depend on the specific conflict and group.
– Those answers become the **evidence** students will use in their paragraphs.
—
#### 8. Research and Pair Work: Applying Indicators to Specific Cases
– **Task instructions**
– In pairs, students were told to:
1. Look at the list of **indicators** for greed and grievance.
2. For **their chosen event and group**, systematically ask:
– Was there **looting**?
– Did they try to control **resources** or **political centers**?
– Where did the **money flow**—to leaders or widely shared?
– Did they **target civilians** or mainly state/security forces?
– Did they **articulate political demands**?
– Were targets **selective**?
– Was recruitment **voluntary** or coerced/mercenary?
– Were they **willing to negotiate** peace at any point?
3. Use quick **research** (e.g., news articles) to identify concrete answers for their case.
– Instructor explicitly allowed and encouraged web research; one group showed a potentially reliable **organization**-type source.
4. **Write down** the answers in brief notes.
– **Scope expectations**
– Students did **not** need exhaustive coverage for every indicator.
– Instructor suggested:
– Having **3–4 indicators** answered is sufficient for this exercise.
– Later, they will **choose the two strongest indicators** as the main evidence in their paragraph.
– **Progress check**
– Instructor informally checked:
– Some groups reported having worked through **all** indicators.
– Others had “mostâ€� done; instructor accepted that as adequate for moving forward.
—
#### 9. Evidence Selection: Choosing the Strongest Indicators
– **Narrowing the evidence**
– With ~10 minutes remaining:
– Students were instructed to **select two indicators** they considered the **most powerful** for answering whether their case was greed or grievance.
– These two will be the **core pieces of evidence** in their revised paragraph.
– **Example discussed in class**
– One student group working on the **2010 protests/riots** (likely in Kyrgyzstan; transcription says “in Washington D.C.â€� but context suggests April 2010 events) chose:
1. **Consistent articulation of political demands**
– People repeatedly stated they wanted to **remove corruption**.
2. **Voluntary recruitment/participation**
– Protesters/participants joined out of political motivation, not for pay.
– Instructor’s push:
– Do not stop at vague statements like “they wanted to remove corruption.â€�
– Answer the **“How do you know?â€�** question:
– For example, cite:
– **Interviews** in local media (e.g., 24.kg) where participants explicitly link their actions to corruption.
– Repeated slogans, statements, or manifestos.
– Stress that next week’s session will focus on adding **citations**, but today students must at least identify **specific concrete examples** they would cite.
—
#### 10. Final Integration Task: Constructing Full Analytical Paragraphs
– **Assembling the paragraph**
– By the end of class, students were told they now have:
– A clear **topic sentence** (argument/hypothesis).
– Several **indicator-based findings**, from which they have chosen two strong ones as evidence.
– Final task (started in class, to be continued):
– **Combine** these elements into a full **argument–evidence–analysis** paragraph:
1. **Argument (topic sentence)**
– E.g., “The 2010 Osh riots were motivated primarily by greed,â€� or “The Taliban’s 2021 capture of Kabul was driven by grievance.â€�
2. **Evidence (2 indicators)**
– E.g., “During the riots, there was extensive looting of shops and homes,â€� AND “Leaders seized control of key economic assets rather than government institutions.â€�
3. **Analysis (explicit reasoning)**
– Clearly explain **how**:
– Looting shows participants sought personal material gain → greed.
– Seizing economic assets over political buildings indicates profit priority, not reform → greed.
– Or, conversely, how consistent political demands, selective targeting, voluntary participation, or willingness to negotiate demonstrate **grievance**.
– **Emphasis on explanation**
– Instructor reiterated:
– Students must **spell out the connection** between each indicator and the greed/grievance claim.
– Writing “they wanted to end corruptionâ€� is insufficient; they must show:
– What sources show this?
– How this aligns with the grievance indicators.
– Analysis is where **argument quality** and **grades** will primarily be decided.
—
### Actionable Items
#### High Urgency (Before/By Next Class)
– **Ensure project submission plan**
– Remind students:
– The project must be **submitted via email** to the instructor **after next Thursday**; clarify exact due date and any formatting/naming conventions if not already specified.
– **Paragraph completion**
– Ask students to:
– Finalize their **single analytical paragraph**:
– Polished topic sentence (group + specific event + greed or grievance).
– Two carefully chosen **indicators** as evidence.
– Explicit **analysis** linking evidence to their claim.
– Bring **written or typed** versions to the next session for citation work.
#### Medium Urgency (Next 1–2 Weeks / Prior to Final Exam)
– **Prepare for citation/quotation session**
– Plan next class to:
– Show students **how to integrate citations and quotations** into these paragraphs (e.g., basic citation format you expect in this course).
– Have a few student examples ready to annotate in class (good and weak uses of sources).
– **Reinforce framework transferability**
– Explicitly connect this greed vs. grievance paragraph exercise to:
– The **skills needed on the final exam**, where the topic may be different but the **use of a conceptual framework** and argument–evidence–analysis structure will be the same.
#### Lower Urgency / Ongoing Course-Design Follow-ups
– **Track student case choices**
– Maintain a brief list of which groups worked on which case (Taliban 2021, IMU kidnappings, 2010 Osh riots, Mexican cartel actions, etc.) to:
– Avoid duplication if you later assign comparative essays.
– Use especially strong or diverse cases as **in-class examples** for future cohorts.
– **Note attendance anomalies**
– Record that:
– At least one student (Silon’s original partner) was absent.
– Kalmar and a partner left early.
– Follow up if needed to ensure they:
– Receive the indicator list.
– Understand expectations for the paragraph and for the upcoming citation class.
If you’d like, I can help you turn this session into a ready-made handout or worksheet (e.g., a one-page “Greed vs. Grievance Indicator Checklist� plus a paragraph template) for students to use while finishing their paragraphs at home.
Homework Instructions:
NO HOMEWORK
The transcript only describes in-class activities (e.g., “we’re going to be continuing today doing the basically the exact same stuff that we were working on on Tuesdayâ€� and “here’s what I’d like you to do next…with your groupmateâ€�) and gives a brief reminder to “please email me this projectâ€� without actually assigning or detailing any new out‑of‑class homework during this lesson.