Lesson Report:
**Title: Greed vs. Grievance – Applying a Motive Framework to Real-World Political Violence**
In this lesson, students moved from fictional scenarios to real-world case studies to analyze political violence through the “greed vs. grievance� framework. The class focused on identifying observable indicators of each motive, then practiced using those indicators to interpret actual conflicts and construct evidence-based written arguments.
—
## Attendance
– Number of students explicitly mentioned as absent: **0**
– The transcript records roll call for some students (e.g., Medina, Katerina, Jibek, Rustam) with confirmations of presence.
– One student’s partner “abandonedâ€� her during a transition to a new activity, but no formal absence was recorded.
—
## Topics Covered (Chronological, with Activity Labels)
### 1. Administrative Notes & Ambassador Talks
– **Follow-up on Ambassador talks**
– Instructor thanked students who repeatedly attend Ambassador talks and actively ask questions.
– Observed issue: student questions to Ambassadors have become too theoretical/abstract and are confusing the speakers.
– Announced that **Tuesday’s class** will explicitly address:
– How to frame questions that are more concrete and grounded in reality.
– How to connect course concepts to practical, understandable questions for diplomats.
– **Upcoming Ambassador sessions**
– As far as the instructor knows, there will be:
– At least one Ambassador talk **next week**, and
– Likely another one the **following week**.
– Students were urged to:
– Watch for email announcements.
– Put these talks into their schedules so they can attend and ask better-structured questions.
– **Attendance check**
– Instructor took attendance orally (Medina, Katerina, Jibek, Rustam noted as present, among others).
—
### 2. Reframing the Study of Political Violence: From Moral Judgment to Explanation
– **Revisiting the core question**
– Instructor emphasized a shift in focus:
– Away from “Is this political violence right or wrong?â€�
– Toward “**Why did it happen?**â€�
– Reformulated the key question:
– Not just *why* the act occurred, but **what the actors hoped to get out of using violence** (intended outcomes).
– **Review of the analytical framework: Greed vs. Grievance**
– Students were asked to recall the two broad motive categories:
– **Greed**
– **Grievance**
– Clarifications:
– **Grievance**:
– Actors have political, social, or economic complaints.
– They seek political change: land reform, redistribution of power, rights for certain groups, or specific leaders coming to power.
– Violence is a means to resolve those complaints.
– **Greed**:
– Actors seek material gain: money, personal power, enrichment.
– Violence is oriented toward controlling profitable resources or accumulating wealth and status.
– Instructor framed greed/grievance as **desired outcomes**:
– What did the violent group **want to gain**?
– Political goals (grievance) vs. private benefits (greed).
—
### 3. Indicator Sorting Activity: T-Chart for Greed vs. Grievance
**Activity Setup**
– Students were instructed to:
– Draw a **T-chart** in their notebooks with two columns labeled:
– “Greedâ€� and “Grievance.â€�
– The instructor would present **five indicators** of a hypothetical group’s behavior.
– For each, students privately placed the indicator into one column (greed or grievance) without speaking out initially.
**Indicators and Class Discussion**
1. **Indicator 1: The group funds the local hospital after capturing the territory.**
– Clarification: “Fundsâ€� = pays for operations, staff, equipment, medicine, etc.
– Class discussion & reasoning:
– Running a hospital is **very expensive**.
– If the group’s primary motive was greed, they would be unlikely to spend scarce resources on free services for civilians.
– The money could instead be hoarded or directed to personal enrichment.
– **Classification:** Strong **grievance** indicator.
– Suggests a political/ideological commitment to civilian welfare or legitimacy-building, not personal enrichment.
2. **Indicator 2: The top general of the group has a secret Swiss bank account with $6 million.**
– Details:
– Hidden, not publicly known.
– General came from relatively modest background (not a pre-war business magnate).
– Class reasoning:
– Implies the general accumulated substantial wealth **as a result of his position in the group**.
– That $6 million could have been used toward group goals (land reform, service provision, etc.) but instead is privatized.
– **Classification:** Clear **greed** indicator.
– Suggests diversion of group resources to personal luxury and security rather than collective political aims.
3. **Indicator 3: The group mostly attacks oil pipelines and refineries in the country’s industrial region.**
– Discussion:
– Students noted these are “the most expensive services/infrastructure.â€�
– Attacks on oil infrastructure can:
– Severely affect the **national economy**.
– Disrupt livelihoods of workers and broader population.
– Instructor highlighted:
– Focus is on **money-generating infrastructure**, not on symbolic political centers or government institutions per se.
– **Classification:** **Greed** indicator.
– Emphasizes control over economic resources, suggesting a material, revenue-focused motive.
4. **Indicator 4: The group publishes a manifesto demanding land reform in poor mountainous areas.**
– Instructor explained **land reform**:
– Common issue in Latin America and elsewhere.
– Usually: a small elite or a few companies own most arable land.
– Majority is pushed into poor, rocky territory or overcrowded cities.
– Land reform seeks **more equal distribution** of land among citizens.
– Reasoning:
– A public manifesto with detailed political demands is a **clear expression of political goals** (grievance-based).
– However, the instructor cautioned:
– The existence of a manifesto is an **indicator**, not proof of sincerity.
– Authenticity of motives requires **multiple indicators**, not just one.
– **Classification:** **Grievance** indicator.
– Manifesto articulates structural injustices and political goals.
5. **Indicator 5: 25% of the group’s fighters are boys under the age of 15.**
– Initial student reactions:
– Some uncertainty: could be interpreted in multiple ways.
– One student suggested it might be “just a fact,â€� not clearly greed or grievance.
– Instructor’s guided interpretation:
– Children cannot fully understand or consent to dying for a cause.
– Recruiting child soldiers is widely seen as **irresponsible and exploitative**.
– Practical reasons for using children:
– Easier to manipulate.
– Cheaper to maintain (lower pay, less food, less resistance).
– **Classification:** Treated as a **greed** indicator for this exercise.
– Positions child soldier use as evidence of exploitative, cost-minimizing behavior rather than principled struggle.
**Meta-level Takeaways on Evidence and Patterns**
– Instructor stressed:
– **No single indicator** can definitively answer whether violence is driven by greed or grievance.
– The point is to **accumulate indicators** and **identify patterns**.
– After classifying the five indicators together:
– The chart had **more indicators on the greed side** than on the grievance side.
– Students observed:
– Motives are often a **mixture** of greed and grievance (“nothing is purely black or white; it’s grayâ€�).
– Instructor’s conclusion:
– We still can and should make **judgment calls** about which motive is more dominant.
– Using this simplified example, we would tentatively say the hypothetical group is **more motivated by greed**, based on the pattern across indicators.
– Framed as a practice in:
– Building an argument from **structured evidence**.
– Distinguishing between **moral judgment** and **analytical explanation**.
—
### 4. Transition from Fiction to Reality: Introducing Real-World Case Studies
– Instructor announced:
– The class is now “moving away from fictionâ€� and toward **real-world case studies** of political violence.
– Students will **apply the greed/grievance framework** to actual groups and events.
– **Partner formation**
– Students were asked to:
– Pair up with one partner for the next activity (a few trios formed where needed).
– **Guidelines for acceptable examples**
– Students instructed to choose **one example of political violence** from the last **200 years**, under two constraints:
1. **Not** government vs. government (no interstate wars).
2. **Not** government committing genocide against its own population (those cases excluded for this exercise).
– Acceptable:
– Groups **outside** the government in power:
– Fighting each other,
– Fighting the government,
– Or attacking civilians.
– Purpose:
– Focus the framework on **non-state or semi-state armed groups** rather than formal interstate war.
—
### 5. Class Brainstorm: Catalog of Case Examples
Students shared their chosen or discussed examples; the instructor clarified and sometimes narrowed the focus to specific groups and timeframes.
Examples included:
1. **Gujarat Riots (India, 2001/2002)**
– Described as:
– Hindu groups (non-governmental, though with some political/religious support) attacking Muslim communities.
– Instructor referred to these as the **Gujarat riots**.
– Treated as political violence between **identity-based groups** within a state, not a formal interstate war.
2. **Syria – Free Syrian Army (from 2011)**
– Students mentioned:
– Broad issues: corruption, injustice, unemployment, economic hardship, political repression.
– Citizens fighting for “social changeâ€� and rights (e.g., women’s rights).
– Instructor pushed students to specify **non-governmental actors**:
– Settled on **Free Syrian Army (FSA)** as the focal group.
– Timeframe: from around **2011** onward.
– Framed as:
– A rebel group engaged in political violence in the context of the Syrian civil war.
3. **Kyrgyz Revolution / 2010 Events (e.g., burning of the “White House�)**
– Students cited:
– Political protests and clashes, including the **burning of the government “White House.â€�**
– Social movement elements: large-scale participation, anti-corruption and political grievances.
– Instructor suggested bundling later protests (e.g., 2022 unrest) with the broader revolutionary episodes as **riots and political violence** involving non-state groups attacking government buildings.
4. **Afghanistan: 2020 Attack on Maternity Hospital**
– One student described:
– An attack on a **maternity hospital** in 2020.
– Resulting in the killing of **mothers, two newborn babies, and medical staff**.
– Government blamed the Taliban; Taliban denied; ISIS-K did not claim responsibility.
– Instructor’s guidance:
– For analysis, students will need to **select one group** to focus on (Taliban or ISIS-K) to apply the framework.
– Regardless, bombing a hospital is clearly a **politically motivated attack on civilians**.
5. **Batken/Bakken Border Clashes (Kyrgyzstan–Tajikistan border, 2021)**
– Students raised:
– Ethnic conflict in the Batken region involving **civilians and soldiers**.
– Instructor:
– Suggested focusing on clashes between **ethnic Kyrgyz and ethnic Tajiks**, especially **civilian participation**, rather than just state forces.
– Framed as localized **ethnic political violence** along the border.
6. **Pro-Russian Separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk (Eastern Ukraine, from 2014)**
– Students initially described as “people who have problems with Ukraine.â€�
– Instructor clarified:
– Multiple **independence/separatist groups** in Donetsk and Luhansk regions engaged in political violence against the Ukrainian government.
– Timeframe: roughly from **2014** onwards (student mis-mention of “2027â€� corrected in context).
7. **Kyrgyz Context: Other domestic unrest**
– There were references to:
– 2020–2022 protests, occupations of government buildings, and clashes in Bishkek.
– Instructor grouped these with other revolution/riot examples under internal political violence involving non-state participants.
The instructor explicitly rejected/redirected examples that did **not** fit the criteria:
– **COVID-19** as “political violenceâ€� in the public health system:
– Instructor insisted on **specific episodes** of group-on-group violence, not a pandemic or general public health mismanagement.
– **Interstate wars** (e.g., 2022 war involving Ukraine and Russia):
– Reiterated multiple times: **no government vs. government** wars for this exercise.
—
### 6. Research Activity: Applying the Framework to a Chosen Case
**Case Selection Step**
– Each pair (or small group) had to:
– Choose **one** of the examples listed on the board that **they did NOT originally suggest**.
– Aim: force students to research and analyze something slightly new to them.
**Research Questions**
Students were told to research their chosen group/case and answer **five structured questions**:
1. **Leadership and Lifestyle**
– Who were the leaders or most famous/prolific members?
– Was the group **well-organized**?
– Did leaders live **frugally** (simple, modest lifestyle) or in **luxury** (sudden wealth, expensive assets etc.)?
2. **Financing**
– How did the group make money?
– Examples: taxes, donations, extortion, control of natural resources, foreign funding, criminal activity, etc.
– What were the main **revenue streams**?
3. **Recruitment**
– How did the group recruit fighters?
– Voluntary enlistment, ideological commitment?
– Coercion/forced recruitment/conscription?
– Were certain demographics (e.g., children, minorities) targeted?
4. **Targets of Violence**
– What did the group mostly attack?
– Government institutions?
– Military targets?
– Economic infrastructure (pipelines, bridges, factories)?
– Civilians?
5. **Governance and Service Provision**
– In areas the group controlled, did they provide **public services**?
– Schools, hospitals, transport (buses), policing, courts, etc.
– Did they attempt to function like a **de facto government**?
**Source Requirements**
– For each answer, students had to:
– Use **online resources** (websites, articles, reports).
– Provide at least **one specific URL** per answer to show where the information came from.
– Explicit prohibition:
– **No AI tools** (ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, etc.) as sources.
– Time allotment:
– About **10 minutes** to gather as much information as possible.
– Instructor acknowledged they might not finish all five but wanted at least **2–3 questions answered**.
—
### 7. Writing Task: Argument Paragraph on Greed vs. Grievance
After the research phase:
– Instructor asked everyone to:
– **Put away phones** and **close laptops**.
– Work in **one notebook** per pair (no need for duplicate notes).
**Writing Prompt**
– For the group and specific instance of political violence they researched, students had to write **one paragraph** answering:
– “Was this group more motivated by **grievance** or by **greed** in this context? Why?â€�
– They were encouraged to make a **directional judgment**:
– Acknowledge complexity if needed, but push themselves to say “more grievance than greedâ€� or “more greed than grievance,â€� rather than a perfect 50-50 balance.
**Required Structure**
1. **Argument (Claim)**
– Clear, thesis-style opening sentence:
– e.g., “The Taliban were motivated more by **greed** than by **grievance** during [specific attack].â€�
– Or the opposite, depending on evidence.
2. **Evidence**
– Summarize specific indicators they uncovered in research:
– Leadership wealth and lifestyle.
– Funding sources.
– Recruitment methods.
– Target selection.
– Public service provision or lack thereof.
– Use **concrete details** (e.g., “leaders owned luxury villas,â€� “group ran taxation/customsâ€� vs. “captured oil fields,â€� etc.).
3. **Analysis (Most emphasized)**
– Explain the **relationship** between the indicators and the conclusion (greed or grievance).
– Instructor revisited the earlier fictional example:
– Funding a hospital = grievance:
– Because it is **expensive** and does not directly line leaders’ pockets.
– Swiss bank account = greed:
– Because that money is diverted **away** from collective political goals to private enrichment.
– Students were expected to replicate this style of analysis:
– Not just “they did X, therefore greed,â€� but **why** X is best interpreted as greed or grievance given the framework.
**Logistics**
– Time target:
– Paragraphs to be completed by about **2:00 PM**.
– Submission:
– When finished, students should **send the paragraph via Telegram** to the instructor.
– Instructor circulated:
– Gave individualized feedback (e.g., coaching a hesitant student to lean toward a side while acknowledging ambiguity).
—
## Actionable Items
### Urgent / Next Class
– **Ambassador Talk Question Workshop (Tuesday)**
– Plan to:
– Explicitly address how to form **concrete, reality-based questions** for Ambassadors.
– Use examples of past overly abstract questions to show how to adjust them.
– Action: Prepare some sample “badâ€� vs. “betterâ€� questions based on what students have been asking, if you want to model the shift.
– **Collect and Review Telegram Paragraphs**
– Ensure all student pairs have submitted:
– A paragraph with clear **claim–evidence–analysis** structure.
– Action:
– Skim for:
– Misclassification of indicators (e.g., misreading of greed vs. grievance),
– Over-reliance on description without analysis,
– Source misunderstandings.
– Note 2–3 strong examples and 2–3 common problems to discuss briefly in the next class.
### Short-Term (This Unit on Political Violence)
– **Follow Up on Case Studies**
– Decide how to use the researched cases in subsequent classes:
– Short group presentations?
– Comparative exercise (e.g., one “greed-heavyâ€� vs. one “grievance-heavyâ€� case)?
– A written assignment expanding the paragraph into a full essay.
– Action:
– Map which pairs took which case, to avoid repetition and to ensure variety across regions and types of violence.
– **Reinforce Source Literacy**
– Some students struggled to identify specific groups, timeframes, and non-state actors.
– Action:
– Consider a brief mini-lesson or handout on:
– How to quickly locate reliable basic information on a conflict (e.g., using academic or reputable news summaries).
– Distinguishing **state vs. non-state** actors clearly.
– **Clarify Scope Boundaries Again**
– There was repeated confusion about:
– Why interstate wars and government-led genocides are excluded from this particular analysis.
– Action:
– Next lesson, briefly restate:
– This framework is currently applied to **non-state armed groups** and **internal conflicts**, with interstate and state-perpetrated mass violence reserved for a later or separate analytic module.
### Longer-Term / Course-Level
– **Track Ambassador Talk Attendance and Engagement**
– Continue informal tracking of who attends and who asks questions.
– Action:
– Consider tying Ambassador interactions into graded or semi-graded reflections
– e.g., short response: “How does one Ambassador’s answer illustrate greed/grievance, or other course concepts?â€�
– **Develop a Library of Case Study Summaries**
– You now have a range of student-selected cases (Gujarat riots, FSA, Batken conflict, Afghan hospital attack, Donetsk/Luhansk separatists, Kyrgyz unrest).
– Action:
– Compile students’ paragraphs and minimal background notes into a shared folder.
– This can become:
– A reference set for exam review,
– A basis for later comparative essays,
– Or material for group debates (e.g., “Is X primarily a greed or grievance conflict?â€�).
– **Monitor Sensitivities Around Local Conflicts**
– Some cases (e.g., Batken clashes, Kyrgyz revolutions, Afghan and Syrian cases) are close to students’ lived experiences.
– Action:
– Continue to balance analytical rigor with sensitivity:
– Explicitly acknowledge emotional stakes.
– Reinforce that the goal is explanation, not dismissal or moral trivialization of suffering.
If you’d like, I can also help you convert this session into a formal lesson plan template (objectives, materials, timed activities, assessments) based on what actually occurred.
Homework Instructions:
NO HOMEWORK
The transcript shows only in-class activities with time limits that are explicitly framed as occurring *during* the remaining class period (e.g., “I’m going to give you guys, let’s say, ten minutes… in ten minutes, we’ll come back…�, and later, “Here’s how I’d like to use our remaining ten minutes together… at 2 o’clock, we should have at least most of a paragraph ready to go in your notebooks�), and there is no instruction that any of this work should be completed after class or before the next session.