Week 2 Discussion — Why Should Anyone Obey? — Traditional alternative (no AI)

Introduction to Political Science Free sample edition

Traditional alternative (no AI), unpublished. In the course this is a separate discussion that ships unpublished beside the adaptive discussion: same objective, no AI. An instructor who prefers it publishes it and unpublishes or deletes the adaptive one, as the note at its top says.

Instructors: publish this instead of the adaptive version if you prefer, and unpublish or delete the adaptive one.

Hook

A referee's whistle stops a game; a stranger's shout does not. A manager you respect gets more done than one you merely fear. This week gave you the words for that difference, power, authority, and legitimacy, and three famous answers to the oldest question in political science: why obey anyone at all?

Your discussion question — choose Option A or Option B; they carry the same weight and the same rubric, and you say which you picked.

Option A: In the illustrative country of Velmora, a dictatorship has fallen and no functioning government has replaced it. Which of this week's three social-contract views (Hobbes's order first, Locke's consent and limits, or Rousseau's sovereignty of the people) should guide Velmora's next step, and why? State the strongest case for one other view before you reply to it, and label which parts of your argument are empirical and which are normative.

Option B: Pick a group you know well: a workplace, a team, a club, a congregation, a family business, or a student organization. Using Weber's three types of authority, explain why people in that group actually obey the person or rule at the top, and say whether that authority is legitimate in the members' eyes. Then take a position: does legitimate authority in a group like yours require an election? Give the strongest case for the opposite position before you reply to it.

There is no single right answer. Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau each have serious defenders, and real groups blend Weber's types in more than one defensible way. Pick one you actually care about, and tell us your reasoning.

Expectations

Activity format: one initial post followed by two substantive peer replies. Plan on about 45 minutes across the two deadlines; your instructor sets both due dates in Canvas.

Your initial post — by the first due date (early in the module week):

Say which option you chose.
For Option A, name the social contract view you think should guide Velmora; for Option B, name your group and the type of authority that carries the most weight there.
State the strongest case for one opposing view before you reply to it.
Use at least two of this week's terms (power, authority, legitimacy, traditional, charismatic, and legal-rational authority, ideal type, state, government, sovereignty, social contract, state of nature, consent) correctly, and label one claim empirical and one normative.
Length: roughly 150–250 words if written. You may instead record your post as audio or video (about two minutes) and attach a transcript; both forms are scored by the same rubric.

Your replies — by the second due date (the end of the module week):

Reply substantively to at least two classmates.
A substantive reply does more than agree: state the strongest case for a view the poster did not choose, point out a blurred pair such as power and authority, or ask what fact would change the poster's mind. "Nice point!" on its own does not count.

What a strong post looks like:

I chose Option B. At my part-time job, staff follow the shift lead mostly because the company's written policy gives that post the schedule, which is legal-rational authority, with some charismatic pull because people like this lead. That claim about why we obey is empirical; you could ask my coworkers. I argue that authority there can be legitimate without an election, which is normative. The strongest case against me is that only a vote gives workers a real say, so obedience without one is closer to power than to authority.

Notice how it names a type of authority, admits the blend, labels each kind of claim, and states the other side at its strongest. That is the bar.

Participation rubric

This discussion is worth 10 points. The three criteria below look at your initial post and your peer replies.

How the 10 points of this discussion are earned
Criterion	Strong	Developing	Missing
Quality of the initial post (4 pts)	A clear position is stated, the strongest opposing view is put fairly, and empirical and normative parts are labelled	A position is present, but the reason is thin or the opposing view is a strawman	Missing, off-topic, or no reasoning
Use of course concepts (3 pts)	Uses power, authority, legitimacy, and the week's thinkers precisely, with each idea credited to the right thinker	Uses a term loosely, or blurs one pair such as power and authority	No course terms, or a thinker swapped
Engagement with peers (3 pts)	Two or more substantive replies that extend or challenge a classmate's reasoning	One substantive reply, or replies that only agree	No replies, or "I agree" with nothing added

Post early if you can — the best threads happen when people have time to reply before the second due date.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com