Lesson Report:
Okay, here is the lesson report based on the provided transcript:
## Lesson Report
**Title:** Workshop on Ethno-Nationalism and Policy Analysis: Applying Connor’s Theories
**Synopsis:** This session continued a workshop activity focused on analyzing the potential impacts of government policies designed to mitigate ethnic conflict in a fictional country, Klobistan. Students explored the intended aims of various policies and contrasted them with the likely reactions of ethno-nationalist groups, connecting these reactions to Walker Connor’s theories on the non-rational, emotional power of ethno-nationalism versus state-centric patriotism.
**Attendance:**
* No students were mentioned as absent in the transcript.
**Topics Covered:**
1. **Introduction & Workshop Continuation:**
* The instructor announced the continuation of the workshop activity from the previous Wednesday class.
* Briefly recapped the previous week’s discussion on multiculturalism vs. nationalism, framing the workshop’s goal: to diagnose tensions and explore potential policy solutions and their reception.
* The overall objective was stated: Policy analysis within fictional scenarios to understand government aims vs. ethno-nationalist responses.
* Mentioned a future discussion connecting the workshop to Gagnon/Gagnan’s text on nationalist narratives and elite mobilization in ethnic conflict.
2. **Workshop Setup & Klobistan Scenario (Worked Example):**
* **Context:** Introduced the fictional country “Klobistan,” experiencing significant ethnic conflict between the majority “Plobeys” and the large minority “Beshbarmakis” (approx. 40% of the population).
* **Plobeys:** Dominant ethnic majority, view Klobistan as historically theirs.
* **Beshbarmakis:** Feel persistently excluded from government positions despite their large numbers; Plobeys counter that there’s no bias and Beshbarmakis are relatively recent migrants.
* **Government Goal:** Implement policies to reduce ethnic tension and instability.
* **Policy Scenario 1 (Class Example):** The Klobistan government proposes requiring all national schools to teach Beshbarmaki history, emphasizing their historical struggles.
* **Analysis Task 1 (Government Aim):** Brainstorming the government’s objectives.
* Student suggestions: Acknowledge Beshbarmaki history as part of Klobistan’s history, spark unity, provide representation for the minority.
* Instructor elaboration: Foster unity (“They’re part of us”), address Beshbarmaki complaints about exclusion from the national narrative, promote tolerance by educating others about Beshbarmaki struggles and potential past oppression.
* **Analysis Task 2 (Ethno-Nationalist Response):** Predicting reactions from ethno-nationalist factions.
* **Plobe Ethno-Nationalists:**
* Initial student thought: Might support it for integration/solidarity.
* *Added Context:* Instructor introduced a hypothetical textbook chapter detailing Plobe systematic exclusion of Beshbarmakis 70 years ago due to ethnic hatred, which Plobe narratives dispute (claiming exclusion was due to Beshbarmaki violence, not ethnicity).
* Revised student/instructor analysis: Likely rejection. Reasons include:
* Valorizing past Beshbarmaki separatism/violence.
* Distortion of Plobe history/national honor (“It’s a lie”).
* Implication of Plobe blame for past wrongs.
* **Connecting to Theory:** Briefly mentioned using Walker Connor’s ideas to interpret whether this reflects deep-seated conflict or something else.
3. **Group Activity: Analyzing Further Scenarios:**
* **Instructions:** Students were divided into three groups (counting off 1-2-3). Each group received a different Klobistan policy scenario.
* **Task:** For their assigned scenario, each group was to:
1. Determine the government’s likely aim in implementing the policy (Why might they think it reduces ethnic conflict?).
2. Predict how ethno-nationalists from *both* the Plobe and Beshbarmaki sides might react (Support/Oppose? Why?).
* **Scenarios Assigned:**
* **Group 1:** City council funds a new Beshbarmaki Cultural Center in a prominent area of the capital.
* **Group 2:** Government creates a special autonomous zone for Beshbarmakis (with limited regional powers).
* **Group 3:** National Museum opens an exhibit emphasizing shared history, intermarriage, and hybridity between Plobeys and Beshbarmakis.
* **Work Time:** Groups were given ~10 minutes to discuss. During this time, the instructor prompted them to consider connections to Walker Connor’s arguments (power of ethnonationalism, non-rational basis, contrast with patriotism).
4. **Group Report-Backs & Class Discussion:**
* **Group 1 (Cultural Center):**
* *Government Aim:* Promote cultural inclusion, mutual understanding, address feelings of marginalization, provide a platform for dialogue, grant legitimacy to the Beshbarmaki community.
* *Beshbarmaki Reaction:* Some might see it as an “olive branch,” a positive step, and an opportunity. Others might see it as “too little, too late,” preferring political representation or anti-discrimination measures over a building.
* *Plobe Reaction:* Opposition likely. Reasons: Seen as promoting separatism, granting unfair privilege (compared to other minorities like the Kordakhi), waste of taxpayer money on a group perceived as unappreciative.
* **Group 2 (Autonomous Zone):**
* *Government Aim:* Reduce dissatisfaction, appease separatists (giving partial separation without full independence), better understand minority needs through regional deliberation, foster inclusion via decentralized power.
* *Beshbarmaki Reaction:* Some might see it as progress. Others might see it as insufficient (wanting full independence) or as the government trying to “put us in a corner” (ghettoization).
* *Plobe Reaction:* Opposition likely. Reasons: Seen as legitimizing and empowering separatism, creating a “safe spot” for separatists to organize, undermining national unity (“separating the state”).
* **Group 3 (Museum Exhibit):**
* *Government Aim:* Create a strong, shared national identity (“one people”), legitimize the current state by emphasizing long-term shared history and coexistence, promote stability.
* *Beshbarmaki Reaction:* (Less explored in transcript, but implied potential rejection) Might see it as forced assimilation or erasure of their distinct identity and historical grievances.
* *Plobe Reaction:* Opposition likely. Reasons: Seen as undermining/erasing the “pure” history and unique identity of the Plobe people, distorting history by downplaying Plobe distinctiveness.
5. **Connecting Workshop to Walker Connor’s Theory:**
* **Final Discussion Prompt:** Do the predicted ethno-nationalist responses align with or challenge Connor’s ideas about the strong, non-rational, emotional component of ethnonationalism?
* **Group 1 Reflections (Cultural Center):** Reactions (Plobe feelings of injustice, separatism fears) align with Connor. The opposition seems non-rational (not based on logical cost-benefit) and emotionally driven by perceived threats to Plobe identity/intimacy, possibly feeling betrayed by the state (linking to Connor’s patriotism vs. nationalism distinction – prioritizing nation over state).
* **Group 2 Reflections (Autonomous Zone):** Reactions align with Connor. The desire for separation (Beshbarmaki) and fear of it (Plobe) are rooted in emotion and identity (“us vs. them,” national consciousness) rather than purely rational calculations (e.g., economics).
* **Group 3 Reflections (Museum Exhibit):** Reactions align with Connor. Plobe insistence on historical purity and opposition to the hybridity narrative appears non-rational, driven by emotion and the desire to maintain distinctiveness rather than objective facts or practical outcomes.
6. **Wrap-up & Next Steps:**
* Announced the reading for Wednesday’s class: Yugoslavia, “Myth of the Ethnic War,” and a short speech by Milosevic (available on e-course).
**Actionable Items:**
* **Course Content:**
* Prepare discussion on Yugoslavia, the “Myth of Ethnic War,” and Milosevic’s speech for Wednesday’s class.
* Consider revisiting Gagnon/Gagnan’s text on elite mobilization in ethnic conflict in a future session, as mentioned in the introduction.
* **Course Logistics:**
* Discuss proposed online/offline class format alternation with Professor Atzinger.
* Prepare and send documentation regarding the confirmed class format to students by tomorrow afternoon.
* **Student Advising:**
* Confirm advising meeting with student Barfya scheduled for Friday at 12:15 PM.
Homework Instructions:
ASSIGNMENT #1: Reading for Wednesday’s Class on Yugoslavia and Ethnic Conflict
This reading assignment prepares you for our upcoming discussion on the conflict in Yugoslavia, focusing on the concept of the “myth of the ethnic war.” You will engage with analysis on ethnic conflict narratives and examine a primary source speech by a key figure involved. This preparation will help you connect the theoretical concepts discussed in class, such as Walker Connor’s ideas on the non-rational aspects of ethnonationalism and the role of elite mobilization, to a real-world case study.
Instructions:
1. Access the readings posted for our upcoming Wednesday class session.
2. Read the assigned text that discusses “the myth of the ethnic war.” As you read, consider how this concept relates to our discussions on whether nationalist narratives by elites *cause* conflict or if deeper factors are at play.
3. Read the short (approx. 3 pages) speech by former Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic provided on the course page.
4. Reflect on how both readings connect to the themes from our recent lessons, including the power of nationalist narratives, the distinction between patriotism and nationalism, the potential for ethno-nationalist groups to interpret policies differently (as explored in the Klobistan workshop), and Walker Connor’s arguments about the emotional and non-rational basis of ethnonationalism.
5. Come to class on Wednesday prepared to discuss these readings and their connections to our course themes.