Lesson Report:
## Title: Legitimacy, Authoritarian Resilience, and Propaganda Functions (Disruption vs. Control) + Conspiracy “Rabbit Holes�
**Synopsis (2–3 sentences):**
This class session connected core political science concepts (legitimacy, performance legitimacy, and authoritarian resilience) to different strategic uses of propaganda in modern information environments. Students evaluated two regime strategies during crisis (censorship vs. flooding with positive content), then applied course models of propaganda (“disruption,� “control,� and a preview of “community�) through group-based artifact collection and analysis using a shared Zoom whiteboard. The session closed by previewing next week’s focus on algorithmic amplification and assigning the first critical reflection journal.
—
## Attendance
– **Absent mentioned:** 0
– **Notable connectivity issues (present but delayed/interrupted):**
– **Nazbikia** had difficulty connecting and joined later.
– **Subban** joined late due to connection issues.
—
## Topics Covered (Chronological, with activity names and detailed notes)
### 1) Warm-Up Retrieval Task: “Simple explanation for a complex/scary problem� on social media
– **Prompt/criteria:**
– Students were asked to recall and (if possible) locate a recent social media post (Instagram/TikTok/etc.) from a **non-official source**:
– Not a major institutional news site
– Not a government spokesperson/official
– Could be a celebrity **if not acting as a journalist or government affiliate**
– The post must offer a **simple explanation** for a **complex/scary** issue.
– **Examples the instructor gave (as templates):**
– “Here’s the real reason for inflation / what they’re not telling youâ€�
– “Here’s why everyone is getting sick and the government doesn’t want you to knowâ€�
– “What they’re not telling you about what’s in our foodâ€�
– “Secret history of our people they won’t tell youâ€�
– **Student deliverable:**
– Find the post again and **save the link** (explicitly noted that it would be used later).
—
### 2) Core Political Science Concept Check: Legitimacy
– **Instructor goal:** Ensure shared vocabulary, especially for students without political science background.
– **Class definitions (synthesized from student responses + instructor clarification):**
– **Legitimacy** = people believe an authority/government has the **right to rule** and to make decisions, not merely the **capacity to coerce**.
– Emphasized legitimacy as broad/vague but crucial: government effectiveness is difficult without some level of public acceptance/support.
– **Key nuance introduced:**
– Multiple reasons can underpin legitimacy; the session focused specifically on one type: **performance legitimacy**.
—
### 3) Performance Legitimacy (as a pathway to support, including in authoritarian contexts)
– **Definition/logic:**
– People support the government because it is “doing a good jobâ€� (e.g., reduced crime, improved economy, increased jobs).
– **Important framing:**
– Legitimacy is not exclusive to democracies; **authoritarian regimes also require legitimacy** (not only fear-based compliance).
—
### 4) Authoritarian Resilience: What it is and why it matters
– **Term introduced:** **Authoritarian resilience**
– Resilience = ability to “stick aroundâ€� / persist
– Authoritarianism = power centralized in the hands of **one leader** or a **small group**, limited pluralism, reduced democratic accountability.
– **Instructor clarification:**
– Mentioned a spectrum from “pure democracyâ€� to “pure totalitarianism.â€�
– Distinguished authoritarianism from totalitarianism (authoritarian control over “almost everythingâ€� vs. totalitarian control over “everything,â€� simplified).
—
### 5) Case Example: El Salvador (Bukele) as performance legitimacy → popular support despite eroded rights
– **Purpose of example:** Illustrate how performance legitimacy can sustain or increase support for authoritarian-leaning governance.
– **Narrative summary (as presented):**
– El Salvador previously had extreme gang violence and very high murder rates.
– Nayib Bukele centralized power and used police/military mass arrests (many alleged gang members).
– Result: country is “genuinely saferâ€� and support for Bukele appears high in polling, despite significant civil-rights erosion.
– **Core tradeoff emphasized:**
– In contexts of violence/chaos, people may accept reduced freedoms in exchange for safety/stability.
—
### 6) Mini-Debate / Poll: Crisis response strategies for legitimacy—Censorship (A) vs Flooding positivity (B)
– **Scenario posed:** A crisis is occurring; government wants to **increase legitimacy/support**.
– **Two options:**
– **Option A:** Censor negative information (turn off internet, delete posts en masse, block content).
– **Option B:** Flood the internet with positive/distracting content so citizens encounter positive videos rather than negative ones.
– **Class vote outcome:** Majority selected **Option B** as more effective; **Timor** voted for **Option A** (noted as not necessarily wrong).
– **Student rationales for B (captured themes):**
– **Censorship creates suspicion/anger:** hiding information signals government is concealing something; may worsen perceptions of crisis severity.
– **Censorship doesn’t create support:** it might suppress criticism but doesn’t necessarily build legitimacy.
– **Practical limits:** hard to fully censor; information spreads offline as well.
– **Distraction/comfort:** many people prefer comfortable content; flooding content can reduce attention to negative news.
– **Real-world contextual example:** A student referenced their country’s recent political context (military coup period) and described the regime emphasizing positive events/clubs to divert young people’s attention.
– **Instructor synthesis:**
– Option A is a common “knee-jerkâ€� attempt to prevent protest diffusion, but it risks **blowback**.
– Option B can be a more “sophisticatedâ€� mitigation/disruption approach by **drowning out** negative content rather than visibly suppressing it.
—
### 7) Propaganda Framework Recap + Expansion: From Disruption/Control to “Community� (loss of narrative control)
– **Course progression recap (explicitly stated):**
– States choose different propaganda types for different strategic purposes.
– Two major purposes already established:
– **Propaganda as disruption:** sow distrust, reduce legitimacy of opponents, generate chaos/fragmentation.
– **Propaganda as control:** build trust in a group (often the regime), reinforce support/compliance.
– **New complication introduced:**
– Propaganda can “escapeâ€� government control once on the internet; narratives become **self-propagating**.
– Leads into a third pathway: **community-driven propagation** (organic amplification).
– **Transition question:** What happens when people lose faith in **all official sources**?
—
### 8) Conspiracy Theories + Booth Reading Concept: The “Rabbit Hole� Pipeline (3 stages)
– **Instructor framing:** Conspiracy theories as “organic forms of propagandaâ€� and as a mechanism that can be exploited or can evolve independently.
– **Definition of “rabbit holeâ€� (as used here):**
– People seek simple explanations for scary/complex personal or societal problems; online search + algorithms escalate exposure to alternative narratives.
– **Illustrative example used:**
– Anxiety/panic attacks → searching online → alternative explanation (e.g., fluoride in water affects brain) → doctor/family dismiss → person doubles down → finds online community → becomes “radicalized.â€�
– **Three stages (explicitly enumerated):**
1. **Uncertainty and questions**: anxiety/crisis triggers search for explanations.
2. **Curiosity and stigma**: individual explores alternative ideas; when they share, they are dismissed/shunned.
3. **Community**: individual finds belonging/identity in fringe online group → echo chamber intensifies and reinforces beliefs.
– **Strategic implication (preview):**
– If a narrative enters this cycle, it becomes self-reinforcing and amplifies over time, creating committed followers and offering disruptive leverage.
—
### 9) Main Applied Activity: Building a class “propaganda library� (Disruption vs Control) using breakout rooms + Zoom whiteboard
– **Planned structure:** Three columns (Disruption, Control, Community), but time constraints limited execution mostly to the first two.
– **Part A — Breakout rooms (Disruption artifact hunt):**
– In groups, students found an example of propaganda aimed at **disruption**.
– Requirements:
– Could be from any time/country.
– Must be able to explain: **What is being disrupted?** Whose legitimacy/trust is being reduced?
– Have a **link** ready.
– **Artifact capture instruction:**
– At least one group member (ideally on a computer) should take a **screenshot** representing the propaganda clearly.
– **Part B — Breakout rooms (Control artifact hunt):**
– Groups found a propaganda example aimed at **control**.
– Again: link + screenshot + explanation ready.
– **Part C — Whole-class synthesis with Zoom whiteboard:**
– Instructor created a two-column grid labeled (handwritten): **Disruption** and **Control**.
– Groups pasted screenshots into the appropriate column (some students on phones couldn’t paste; instructor asked another group member to do it).
– At least one group reported they **couldn’t find** a disruption/control example; instructor moved forward using what the class had collected.
– **Part D — Final short breakout: Analyze peers’ artifacts**
– Groups selected **one item from each column** that **they did not contribute**.
– Task:
– For disruption: identify target and explain how it reduces trust/legitimacy in a group.
– For control: identify target and explain how it increases trust/legitimacy in a group.
– Time was short; instructor ended by noting the activity would continue next week.
—
### 10) Wrap-Up / Course Roadmap: Algorithms as accelerant (next week)
– **Preview topic:** “The algorithm as an accelerantâ€� — algorithmic amplification on TikTok/Instagram/YouTube/Google and how mastering it provides leverage over what people see.
– Positioned as the key “modern elementâ€� only briefly touched today, to be expanded next session.
—
## Actionable Items (Short bullets, organized by urgency)
### High Urgency (Due soon)
– **Critical Reflection Journal #1 due Friday, Feb 13**
– Students reminded: instructions in the syllabus; submission page already available on **eCourse**.
### Medium Urgency (Next class preparation)
– **Next week’s topic:** Algorithmic amplification (“the algorithm as an accelerantâ€�)
– Ensure assigned reading/materials on algorithms are posted/visible on eCourse (if not already).
– **Continue/complete propaganda grid activity next week**
– Consider whether to add the third column (**community**) explicitly, since it was introduced conceptually but not completed in the artifact library due to time.
### Low Urgency / Instructional follow-ups
– **Technical/logistical improvements for whiteboard activity**
– Provide guidance for students on phones/tablets (how to contribute links/screenshots; designate one “scribeâ€� per group on a laptop).
– **Connectivity accommodations**
– Note recurring connection problems for some students (e.g., delayed joining); consider backup method for submitting artifacts (chat link drop, shared doc, or LMS discussion thread).
Homework Instructions:
ASSIGNMENT #1: Critical Reflection Journal #1 (Due February 13)
[Short summary of the assignment and its purpose in relation to the lesson overall, written in the second person]
You will submit your first critical reflection journal (CRJ #1) to connect this week’s discussion of propaganda (disruption vs. control vs. community), legitimacy (especially performance legitimacy), and the “rabbit hole� pathway into conspiracy theories to your own critical analysis and reflection in writing.
Instructions:
1. **Locate the full assignment requirements in the syllabus.**
– Use the syllabus as the primary source for formatting, length, prompt details, and evaluation criteria. (In class: “We talked about this last week. You can find more instructions regarding it in the syllabus.â€�)
2. **Review this week’s key concepts to guide your reflection.**
In preparing your journal, make sure you are grounding your reflection in ideas emphasized in this lesson, including:
– **Legitimacy** (public belief that a government has the right to rule) and **performance legitimacy** (support based on perceived effectiveness, e.g., safety/economy).
– **Authoritarian resilience** (how authoritarian systems remain stable/maintain power).
– Propaganda as **disruption** vs. **control**, and the added model of **community** (how narratives can spread and strengthen “organically,â€� including outside direct state control).
– Booth’s **rabbit hole** process into conspiracy theories:
1) uncertainty/questions → 2) curiosity/stigma → 3) community/identity and reinforcement.
3. **Write your Critical Reflection Journal #1 following the syllabus instructions.**
– Ensure your writing reflects the purpose of a *critical reflection*: you should not just summarize terms, but analyze and reflect using the course frameworks introduced (e.g., how propaganda might aim to disrupt trust, increase control/legitimacy, or grow through community dynamics).
4. **Confirm the due date and time.**
– Your CRJ #1 is **due Friday, February 13**. (In class: “For next Friday, it will be due on February 13th. Your first critical reflection journal will be due.â€�)
5. **Submit the journal to the course submission page.**
– Submit using the **Critical Reflection Journal #1** submission link that is already available. (In class: “The submission page is already there for you…â€�)