Lesson Report:
Title
Power, Rules, and the State: From De Jure vs. De Facto to the Monopoly on Force
In this online session, the class transitioned from last week’s discussion of power to the concept of rules, how they operate, and who enforces them. Students distinguished between written (de jure) and unwritten (de facto) rules, then examined how organizational rules differ from government public policy, culminating in the defining feature of government: the monopoly on force/violence. The class also handled online logistics (camera policy, attendance) and previewed next steps on legitimacy, sovereignty, and status quo.
Attendance
– Students explicitly mentioned as absent: 0
– Notes:
– Cameras required for attendance; several students reported technical issues (e.g., “Tolkien Beckâ€� and one additional student). Professor to follow up by email.
– Attendance taken by live participation and end-of-class screenshot(s). Non-responsive, camera-off students risked being marked absent.
Topics Covered (chronological)
1) Online transition and participation expectations
– Logistics: Next ~1.5 weeks of classes online (this session, Thursday, and two next week).
– Camera policy: Cameras required for attendance. If camera is off, those students will be called on first; failure to respond risks loss of attendance for the day.
– Technical setup: Instructor using a physical whiteboard via a webcam (due to Zoom whiteboard limitations); will write in large print and share board photos afterward.
– Audio check and quick adjustments to microphone based on student feedback.
2) Quick review from last Thursday: Defining power
– Student-sourced definitions:
– Power as the capacity to achieve goals.
– Distinction between influence (others choose to follow) and power (ability to make others do what they otherwise would not do), including aspects of control and leadership.
– Framing for today: Moving from “powerâ€� to the rules through which power is exercised.
3) Warm-up reflection activity: “A rule I followed�
– Instructions: Think of any single rule you followed recently (any domain of life). Write what the rule is and how you followed it (3 minutes). Then answer two prompts about that rule:
1) Is it written? Where did it come from/who made it?
2) What might happen if you broke it (likely consequences)?
– Aim: Build a class corpus of rules to use in analysis of sources, formality, and enforcement.
4) Gathering examples from students (selected)
– Human rights: “Did not harass anyone.â€�
– Traffic rules: Stopped at a red light.
– Attendance and punctuality:
– Studying via Zoom; not skipping classes.
– Not being late to AUCA classes.
– Turning on camera during Zoom class.
– Civic/environmental: Do not litter.
– Personal responsibility: Cleaned my room (assigned family responsibility).
– Content norms in schooling: Avoid writing about controversial topics (example given from South Africa re: blasphemy/faith topics).
– Academic integrity: Not using AI in essays/assignments.
– Public health/safety: No smoking indoors in public places/campus.
5) Analysis round: Written vs. unwritten and consequences (three exemplars)
– University attendance (Narisa):
– Written: Yes (syllabus, student handbook, and institutional contracts).
– Source: AUCA administration (organizational rule-making).
– Consequences: From grade penalties and failing the class to probation/expulsion; financial loss if tuition is forfeited. Not criminal—no jail. Variation by syllabus emphasized.
– Family dishes rule (Sopiats):
– Written: No (family norm).
– Source: Household/family practice; not necessarily explicitly codified, but accepted within the family.
– Consequences: Dirty dishes remain; family disappointment. Limited to social/household consequences.
– Visa requirements for EU conference travel (Clara):
– Written: Yes (immigration law; Schengen regulations).
– Source: EU/government authorities.
– Consequences: Denied entry; illegal status if entry without proper visa; potential deportation, detention/jail, and future visa difficulties. Discussed variability in application/enforcement.
6) Key concepts: De jure vs. de facto rules
– Definitions:
– De jure: By the book—written, formally decided rules (codified by an authority).
– De facto: In practice—unwritten norms or actual behaviors expected/accepted in reality.
– Example: Left-turn behavior at intersections in Kyrgyzstan.
– De jure: Move into intersection and turn according to traffic code; obey light phases.
– De facto: Drivers often queue deep into the intersection and complete turns on yellow/red; social pressure (honking) enforces the in-practice norm despite the code.
– Status quo: Related to de facto as the accepted current state of behavior; deeper treatment promised for Thursday.
7) Classification exercise: Sorting class examples as de jure/de facto
– Did not harass anyone: De jure (codified in law and institutional codes); often also de facto in campus culture.
– Stopped at a red light: De jure and generally de facto.
– Came to class: De jure (syllabus/handbook) and commonly de facto (most students attend).
– Was not tardy: Typically both; varies by context and enforcement.
– Turned on camera in Zoom: De jure (instructor’s written email/class policy) and de facto (visible compliance).
– Did not litter: De jure (laws and AUCA codes); de facto varies by setting; on campus often both.
– Cleaned the room: Usually de facto/personal or family rule; may be de jure in dorms via point/penalty systems with sanctions (loss of points, fines, possible removal from dorm after threshold).
– Avoid controversial topics in school (South Africa example): De jure via legal/administrative constraints; often de facto adherence in institutions.
– No smoking indoors: De jure (public health regulation), widely de facto in formal spaces.
– No AI in essays: De jure per course/departmental policies; de facto adherence depends on enforcement norms.
8) De jure rules subdivided: Organizational rules vs. public policy
– Organizational rules:
– Made by organizations (e.g., AUCA policies).
– Punishment scope limited to organizational membership/benefits (grade penalties, probation, expulsion, loss of dorm points, fines). Cannot imprison; may refer to external authorities if warranted.
– Public policy:
– Made by government.
– Punishment can include the use of force (physical compulsion), detention, prosecution, incarceration.
9) What makes a government distinct? The monopoly on force/violence
– Student inputs:
– Organizational rules are subordinate to government law (hierarchy).
– Government power involves legitimacy and sovereignty (to be defined next class).
– Instructor definition (shared in chat): Monopoly on force/violence is the right to use physical force to make people comply and to punish rule breaking.
– Contrast:
– AUCA can sanction or remove members but cannot lawfully detain or imprison.
– Government (via police/courts/prisons) can lawfully arrest, detain, and use force to enforce compliance (e.g., theft leads to arrest and potential jail time).
– Framing for future: This distinction underpins why we obey laws and how states differ from other rule-making bodies.
10) Wrap-up and preview
– Key takeaways:
– Rules: de jure vs. de facto.
– De jure subdivided: organizational vs. public policy (enforcement scope differs).
– Government’s distinguishing feature: monopoly on force.
– Deferred activity: Main group activity moved to Thursday due to time and setup delays.
– Next topics: Status quo, legitimacy, sovereignty; edge cases (e.g., governments with contested monopolies, nation vs. state).
– Homework: Complete the assigned reading for Thursday.
– Materials: Instructor to share photos of the whiteboard/notes to Telegram groups.
Actionable Items
Urgent (before next class)
– Send materials:
– Post whiteboard photos and the two reflection questions to all class Telegram groups.
– Repost the definition of “monopoly on force/violence.â€�
– Reading reminder for Thursday (include pages/links).
– Camera/attendance follow-up:
– Email students who reported camera issues (e.g., “Tolkien Beckâ€� and the other student) with troubleshooting steps; document technical exceptions temporarily but reiterate responsiveness requirement for attendance.
– Clarify in writing that non-responsive, camera-off students risk being marked absent.
– Class plan adjustments:
– Prepare the postponed main activity for Thursday (build on rule classification toward legitimacy/sovereignty/status quo).
– Create a crisp slide/handout for key terms (de jure, de facto, organizational rule, public policy, monopoly on force) to reduce dependence on camera-board legibility.
– Individual student support:
– Email Zoom/link and details for the “AI & Democracyâ€� 5:00 p.m. course to the student who requested it.
Short-term (this week)
– Attendance records:
– Archive end-of-class screenshots and participation notes for grade/attendance integrity during online period.
– Tech setup:
– Stabilize camera and board visibility; test mic settings to avoid mid-class switching.
Longer-term / To address soon
– Conceptual expansions:
– Plan a segment on edge cases (e.g., governments without effective monopolies, international courts, and how these interact with sovereignty/legitimacy).
– Collect and compile class-generated rule examples into a categorized reference sheet (de jure/de facto; organizational/public policy) for exam review.
Homework Instructions:
” ASSIGNMENT #1: Reading on Power, Rules, and the Monopoly on Force
You will complete the assigned reading for the next class to deepen your understanding of how de jure and de facto rules operate, how organizational rules differ from public policy, and why governments claim a monopoly on force; this prepares you for Thursday’s activities on status quo, sovereignty, and legitimacy that we previewed in class.
Instructions:
1) Locate the reading assigned for the next class in this week’s course materials or the syllabus reading schedule.
2) Preview the text: skim the title, abstract/intro, headings, and conclusion to identify the author’s main argument and how it connects to today’s themes (power, rules, punishment).
3) Read actively and annotate. As you read, highlight or define these key terms we introduced:
– De jure (written/decided rules)
– De facto (rules in practice)
– Organizational rules vs. public policy
– Monopoly on force/violence
– Status quo, legitimacy, sovereignty (flag these for Thursday)
4) Take focused notes that connect the reading to our examples from class:
– For de jure vs. de facto: jot down at least three examples from your life (e.g., traffic lights, attendance, littering) and identify whether each is de jure, de facto, or both; note where each rule comes from and the likely consequence if broken.
– For organizational vs. public policy: list one rule made by an organization you’re part of (e.g., AUCA attendance/cameras) and one rule that is public policy (e.g., immigration/visa, traffic law). For each, specify the maximum kind of punishment available and who enforces it.
5) Synthesize the central distinction highlighted in class. In 2–4 sentences, explain in your own words how the “monopoly on force� separates governments from other organizations (use our AUCA vs. state examples on punishment limits).
6) Prepare two discussion questions to bring on Thursday:
– One about how de jure rules can diverge from de facto practice in your context.
– One about edge cases we mentioned (e.g., governments with weak or contested monopoly on force, or how status quo relates to de facto rules).
7) Organize your notes clearly (bullet points are fine). Bring them to the next class and be ready to be called on to share an example or your synthesis. Cameras are required per class policy.
8) Complete all of the above by the start of the next class (Thursday). If you cannot locate the assigned reading, contact the instructor promptly so you can stay on track. “