I have attached the poster I used at the poster conference as well as the video of my research presentation to this post.
All Posts
Mentor Post #6 Supplemental: Clement Ho
I met with Clement Ho on February 23rd for 30 minutes to discuss the research aspects of my project. After explaining my topic and research question, he showed me how to access and utilize the different international relations databases the American University Library has access to, something I may or may not have forgotten over winter break. After this, we searched through the databases to find some surveys, speeches, and economic statistics relevant to my research. We then had a discussion on the difficulties of finding certain types of sources on certain countries that were accessible to those who do not speak the language of the countries in question.
Mentor Post #5 Supplemental: Dean Jackson
I met with Dean Jackson on February 2nd for about 45 minutes to discuss my research project. After spending 15 minutes discussing our shared admiration for the Star Wars: The Last Jedi and the Clone Wars television series, we got down to the business of talking about my project. We talked about his experience being a guest professor at the Central European University in Hungary and his thoughts on what the situation in Hungary. He pointed me towards cultural rather than institutional elements of democratic decline, explaining that the Hungarian government had recently started stationing heavily armed police on campus without any justifiable security reason as a sort of intimidation measure against the student body. When I mentioned my interest in nationalism’s role in democratic decline, he brought up his visit to the House of Terror museum in Hungary and the nationalist message that it radiates. He mentioned having a number of materials from the museum gathering dust on his desk and asked if I wanted to use them. I arranged to pick them up after he brought them into the office next week.
Mentor Post #4
I met with Professor Levan on Friday the 13th of April for half an hour to discuss my analysis draft. During our discussion, we focused on my causal model and how it is expressed in my analysis. Professor Levan indicated that within my model as drawn up in my analysis section, it was unclear how the different variables interacted. More specifically, he said that it was unclear why the variable “loss of faith in liberal democracy” was the intermediary step between economic decline and democratic decline while “nationalism” and “appeal of alternative systems of governance” were labeled as antecedent conditions. Additionally, he thought that the variable “appeal of alternative systems of governance” was unhelpful as I was essentially saying that the appeal of alternative systems of governance led to alternative systems of governance, which is not exactly a profound statement.
We also discussed more stylistic elements involved in improving my paper. One top recommendation was moving more of my conclusions and takeaways to the beginning of my paper. The purpose of this change is to get to the point in a more direct fashion. After discussing this specific point, we discussed the revision process more generally and agreed that stylistic concerns are the last thing you address in the process as you have to address content and structural problems first.
RPP #6
I suppose part of me always knew that human knowledge and the way that we as scholars understand that knowledge was the product of decisions that were all too human as opposed to some objective process. When I was still just a military history nerd back in middle school, I was highly aware of the fact that most history of conflict is written by those who emerged victorious from individual conflicts. I also understood that this principle also applied to history more generally, with powerful groups and individuals wielding outsized influence over how we tell the story of the past. Despite this understanding of the role of power and privilege in the creation of history, I had never really applied much critical thought to the nature of knowledge in the social sciences before coming to college. This is likely a result of me sharing the identity of many of the traditional foundational thinkers in the social sciences: white, male, and straight.
Prior to the readings for seminar 7, I did not even know that W.E.B. Du Bois was an academic, let alone that he can credibly claim to be the first American sociologist. I knew he was a prominent writer and civil rights activist, but little else about the man. I was shocked, but not terribly surprised, to learn of the way he was shunned and denied due credit for his work because of his race and radical challenge to the then dominant discourse on race in academia.[1] What I mean by the phrase “shocked but not surprised” is that I was shocked to have never heard this specific story before but was not surprised to learn of its existence. American history is full of stories of the members of marginalized groups having their voices silenced and their accomplishments claimed by others.
The other half of this equation of marginalization is the building up of the historical reputation of certain western scholars to the point where one doesn’t even consider questioning them or their ideas. This half was also protested by students at Soas, with one stating “We’re not trying to exclude European thinkers, we’re trying to desacralize European thinkers, stopping them from being treated as unquestionable.” As I believe that scholars should be in the habit of thinking critically about everything, I agree with this student with the importance of removing the Western greats from their pedestals. If one is truly committed to the spirit of inquiry that dominates academic research, challenging the traditional Western cannon and bringing in formally marginalized voices is absolutely essential.
[1] “The Case for Scholarly Reparations,” Berkeley Journal of Sociology, January 11, 2016, http://berkeleyjournal.org/2016/01/the-case-for-scholarly-reparations/.
Mentor Post #3
Noah Higgins
03/29/2018
Mentor Post
I met with Professor Levan on Tuesday March 27th from 4:15 to 4:30. At our meeting we discussed my abstract and my analysis draft/outline. Regarding my abstract, he thought it was pretty solid overall but could use a few minor structural changes as well as a more major change that involved separating out and explaining more thoroughly several of the conclusions I discuss in the last sentence of my existing abstract.
Finally, we had a fairly extensive discussion about my analysis section. While I didn’t ask him to read through what I had written, I walked him through my outline of how I will be analyzing my variables. He recommended that I make sure to reiterate the rationale behind exploring each specific variable prior to presenting my evidence. The reason behind this is to make sure I tie my evidence and analysis back to the academic literature on the subject.
We also briefly discussed a recently released book on Viktor Orban which has been getting rave reviews. It is now on my reading list but only for after the semester is over.
RPP #5
There are several reasons that both Bacon and Weber insist on a sharp division between the realm of the sciences and that of morality. In Bacon’s case, part of this insistence appears to spring from religious principles or a desire not to upset the religious authorities. He is quite explicit in claiming that moral knowledge in revelatory in nature and that humans should not attempt to apply worldly methodologies, such as science, to the investigation of morality.[1] He illustrates this neatly with a discussion of the Biblical story of Adam and the difference between Adam naming all the creatures God had created and Adam eating of the apple to learn knowledge of good and evil. Meanwhile, there are two important reasons Weber gives for supporting a division between science and morality. Firstly, Weber does not believe that the scientists be of trumpeting their moral and political beliefs as it will undermine their integrity writing “the prophet and the demagogue do not belong on an academic platform.”[2] Secondly, Weber points out that science is fundamentally about progress while that’s really not the case with value laden disciplines concerned with fulfillment like art and, by extension, morality.[3] Therefore, applying the metrics of one in an attempt to examine the other is fundamentally inappropriate and counterproductive.
One advantage of insisting on a divide between the realm of science and the realm of morality is that we, as social scientists, avoid the accusation of seeking to establish some sort of elitist rule where scientists occupy the role of philosopher-king. This division also stops the sciences from actually being co-opted by those who seek to implement their own preferred morality on society, like those techno-fascists that keep popping up in class. There are also benefits that accrue to both scientists and those who investigate morality in the form of specialization. It would be inefficient for scientists to extensively devote their time to moral questions and vice versa. I know that for my project it is certainly more efficient to accept some normative assumptions rather than expend a lot of energy and ink seeking to recreate these normative assumptions for myself. That is not to say that I should be unaware of my normative assumptions regarding liberal democracy or avoid critically analyzing these assumptions, but it is certainly helpful to reverify these assumptions with each foray into the realm of the social sciences.
[1] Francis Bacon, “The Great Renewal,” in The New Organon, 12.
[2] Max Weber, Science as a Vocation, 8.
[3] Ibid. 4.
RPP #4
This paper focuses on democratic decline in established democracies, particularly those in post-Communist Eastern Europe. While the academic literature on this subject contains a multitude of theories on the reasons for democratic decline including geopolitics, social capital, economic factors, and the role of nationalism, there has been little focus on measuring the relative influence of these theorized causes within specific cases of democratic decline. My research will fill this gap by diving into the case of Hungary to explore the relative influence of the theorized causes as well as the process by which they work in practice in that case. I will utilize a small-n neopositivst approach to achieve this goal and the materials I examine include survey data from Gallup Analytics and the World Value Survey, speeches by Hungarian elites such as Prime Minister Viktor Orban, and newspaper articles, both from within Hungary and without. The exploration of this data indicates that the primary cause of democratic decline in Hungary is the rising nationalism within Hungary. This research is important because it contributes to filling a gap in the literature and has a broad applicability as rising nationalism seems to be a theme of the 21st century thus far.
Mentor Post #2
I met with Professor Levan on Tuesday February 20th between 4:00 and 4:30. In our meeting, we discussed the last gasp of my inclination to pursue a discourse analysis approach and my ultimate decision to continue forward with a small-n neopositivist approach. We then discussed an event on democratic decline in Hungary held at the National Endowment of Democracy that I recently attended on his suggestion. The speaker presenting his research at that event was primarily focused on explaining the support for Viktor Orban and his illiberalism as a function of economic factors rather than other factors such as geopolitics or social capital. Professor Levan and I discussed the relative merits of this approach.
Our discussion also touched on the specific next steps for my project. These next steps primarily revolve around methodology and sources as a methodological section draft is due in the near future and it is always important to be expanding and improving upon the sources one is reading. With regards to methodology, we discussed the relative merits of single-case process tracing and a more comparative approach. We also discussed my inclination to utilize process tracing with a single primary case with other cases being used to inform my thinking without rising to the level of coequal case. With regards to the latter, he recommended that I meet with a research librarian to help improve my sources.
RPP #3
While I am uncertain as to whether Gorski’s basic suggestion that social science can offer genuine insights into human-wellbeing was strongly persuasive to me or whether his suggestion just confirmed a belief I already held, it is fair to say that I do believe in his hypothesis that moral facts exist. Personally, I do not see a ton of differences between his ethical naturalism and however Sam Harris would identify his belief system. Gorski’s ethical naturalism is focused on human well-being achieved through means that are non-theistic.[1] Similarly, Sam Harris focuses on how to achieve human flourishing and, as I picked up on in his video and confirmed via a quick Google search, he certainly is no fan of religion.[2] While the reasoning each adopts to get to their respective conclusions might be slightly different, the conclusions themselves are not.
As an aside, while I agree with Sam Harris that there are right and wrong answers to the question of achieving human-wellbeing,[3] and that accepting the existence of a plurality of right answers is a key part of holding this belief, I think he’s far too certain about the universality of his own convictions. This is not to say that I accept the premise that all value claims are equal or that cultural differences never result in differences in the wellbeing of people. Far from it, I agree with Harris on both of those points. However, I think he is far to quick to discount value systems and conceptions of human well-being that are based on religion. He fails to understand that even if he does not see any value in religious beliefs that religion remains an important part of the lives of billions of people worldwide. To deride it as mere irrationality is the height of arrogance. Furthermore, while Gorski does not make any such negative claims about religion, his ethical naturalism is explicitly non-theistic. I feel this is also a mistake as, once again, religion remains an important part of the lives of billions of people and therefore the discourse on morality that has been built up over generations by adherents of all the world’s religions deserves to be part of any discussion of moral facts.
But I digress. With regards to my own research, I do not feel as if my research lends itself particularly well to normative discovery of this kind. The reason for this is simply that my research is not designed to ask such moral questions. While I am starting from a normative assumption that liberal democracy is overall a positive for human well-being, I am attempting to explore the causality of democratic decline rather than interrogating the validity of my preexisting normative assumption. Perhaps I will come across something in my research that will force me to reevaluate my beliefs, but that is not the intent of my research.
[1] Philip S. Gorski, “Beyond the Fact/Value Distinction: Ethical Naturalism and the Social Sciences,” Society 50, no. 6 (December 1, 2013): 543–553.
[2] Sam Harris, Science Can Answer Moral Questions, n.d., accessed February 13, 2018, https://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.
[3] Ibid.