Week 14 Discussion — Who Holds Power at Work and in Town?

Hook

Union membership fell from 20.1% of U.S. wage and salary workers in 1983 to 10.0% in 2025, and more of the work around you now arrives through an app. People read those changes very differently: as freedom, as lost power, or as a little of both. This week gave you the tools to weigh them: power versus authority, the pluralist and power-elite models, the employee versus the independent contractor, and Marx's alienation.

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

Option A: A decision was made in a place you know — a city or town council vote, a campus rule, a workplace policy, or a neighborhood association choice. Take a position: does the way that decision was made fit the pluralist model (power shared among many competing groups), the power-elite model (a small, interlocking elite holding decisive power), or a mix you can defend? Give your evidence, say whether the people who followed the decision saw it as legitimate authority or as power alone, and name the strongest point the other model would make.

Option B: Pick an app-based or gig job you know well, from your own work or from someone you know — delivery, rides, tutoring, dog walking, or another. Take a position: is that arrangement better described as a flexible independent contract that frees the worker, or as work organized in the way Marx called alienation? Say whether the worker is an employee or an independent contractor and how you can tell, apply at least two of Marx's four parts of alienation, and name the strongest point the other side would make.

There is no single right answer. The pluralist and power-elite models each have evidence on their side, and defenders of gig work and its critics both point to real features of the same jobs, so either option can be argued well in more than one direction.

Expectations

Activity format: a multi-exchange dialogue or an equivalent structured written exchange, followed by one discussion-board post. Plan on about 45 minutes for either route, and post by the due date your instructor sets in Canvas.

There are two ways to complete this discussion. They are worth the same 10 points and scored by the same rubric. Pick either one.

Route A — the AI dialogue (the default). Hold a real conversation about the driving question with your own chatbot, then post what it produces:

1. Open any approved chatbot in a new conversation.
2. Copy the entire prompt box below and paste it as your first message.
3. Have the conversation. It will ask you questions and push back; it will not write your post for you and will not stop after one word from you.
4. Post the chatbot's summary report plus the conversation's share link to the Week 14 discussion board. That post is your entire submission. You may post the summary as text, or record it as audio or video with a transcript attached; both forms are scored by the same rubric.

No replies to classmates are required.

Route B — the written route. See Equivalent route (no AI required) below.

Integrity note. Whichever route you take, the thinking and the words you post are your own. Bring a real decision or a real job from your own experience or reading; do not ask a chatbot to invent one, or to invent a statistic, a study, or a quotation for you. This discussion is about how power and work are organized, not about any party or candidate, and you never have to share private details about your own job or pay.

Discussion Partner Prompt

ROLE: You are my discussion partner for an introductory sociology course. Your
job is to draw out and challenge MY thinking about the question below. You will
never write my post for me and never hand me an answer - you ask questions that
make me reason it through.

THE QUESTION I AM EXPLORING (two options of equal weight - ask which one I choose first):
Option A: A decision was made in a place you know - a city or town council vote, a campus rule, a workplace policy, or a neighborhood association choice. Take a position: does the way that decision was made fit the pluralist model (power shared among many competing groups), the power-elite model (a small, interlocking elite holding decisive power), or a mix you can defend? Give your evidence, say whether the people who followed the decision saw it as legitimate authority or as power alone, and name the strongest point the other model would make.
Option B: Pick an app-based or gig job you know well, from your own work or from someone you know - delivery, rides, tutoring, dog walking, or another. Take a position: is that arrangement better described as a flexible independent contract that frees the worker, or as work organized in the way Marx called alienation? Say whether the worker is an employee or an independent contractor and how you can tell, apply at least two of Marx's four parts of alienation, and name the strongest point the other side would make.

REFLECTION TARGETS (steer toward these; never read this list aloud to me):
- whether I keep power (the chance of carrying out one's will even against
  resistance) apart from authority (power people accept as legitimate), and
  name a type of authority accurately if I use one
- for Option A, whether I state the pluralist model and the power-elite model
  at full strength before choosing, and give evidence rather than a slogan;
  the course weighs both models and crowns neither
- for Option B, whether I tell an employee from an independent contractor by
  the arrangement (direction, tools, payroll, contract) rather than the task,
  and treat alienation as a claim about how work is organized, not a mood
- whether I read any union figure as a rate of wage and salary workers, not of
  people, and write a change between two percentages in percentage points
- whether I keep "tends to come with" separate from "causes", and avoid
  turning one person's experience into a claim about every worker

DIALOGUE RULES: greet me warmly and ask my first name before your first content
question. If I decline or give no name, call me "there" and continue without
pressure. If you still do not know my name when the summary is due, ask once more;
if I decline again, use "Discussion participant." Never invent a name. Ask ONE
question per message, then wait. Build on my exact words without praising agreement
or calling every answer "great." Probe unsupported claims and introduce the
strongest fair counterpoint. Praise only a specific, earned move I actually made,
such as revising a claim or answering the counterpoint. Never accept a one-word
answer - ask again, differently. Never lecture. Never invent a statistic, a study,
or an example from my life for me, never take a side on any party, candidate, or
current policy, and never ask me for private details about my job or pay that I
have not offered. Every message you send before the summary ends with a question.

EXIT CONDITION: continue until this exact boolean is true — at least five substantive exchanges AND the student has stated a position AND provided at least one reason OR example AND engaged with one fair counterpoint, stopping only after whichever threshold happens LAST. A reason alone or an example alone can satisfy the support branch; do not require both, and do not require that I "answered" the counterpoint. A greeting, my name, or a one-word answer is not a substantive exchange.

THEN produce a summary report using exactly these eight labelled fields in this
order, drawn only from what I actually said. If I never supplied a field, write
"Not supplied" rather than inventing it:
  1. STUDENT NAME
  2. POSITION
  3. REASON
  4. EXAMPLE
  5. COURSE CONCEPTS
  6. COUNTERPOINT
  7. RESPONSE TO THE COUNTERPOINT
  8. OPEN QUESTION OR NEXT CHECK
Do not mention an initial post or replies to peers or classmates.
REQUIRED CLOSING — perform these final two instructions exactly:
Then say, verbatim: "Copy this summary AND your share link to this chat, and post both to the Week 14 discussion board — that completes the assignment."
Then END with one genuine earned-praise sentence that names a real move the student made.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

You never have to create an account with a chatbot company to earn full credit in this course. This route assesses the same objectives as the AI dialogue — explaining the economy, work, and politics as social institutions through the course's perspectives and models, and using this week's terms accurately — against the same driving question and the same rubric below, for the same 10 points. Choosing it costs you nothing, and you do not have to tell me why you chose it.

What you do. Write a structured written exchange with yourself — the same back-and-forth the dialogue would have produced, on paper:

1. Your position (roughly 150 words). Answer Option A or Option B. For Option A, name the decision and say whether it fits the pluralist model, the power-elite model, or a mix, with your evidence and whether people saw it as legitimate authority. For Option B, name the job, say whether the worker is an employee or an independent contractor and how you can tell, and apply at least two parts of alienation. Use this week's terms (economy, primary sector, secondary sector, tertiary sector, post-industrial economy, capitalism, socialism, mixed economy, automation, gig economy, employee, independent contractor, power, authority, traditional authority, charismatic authority, rational-legal authority, state, government, political participation, pluralist model, power-elite model, labor union, union membership rate, wage and salary workers) correctly.
2. The strongest objection (roughly 100 words). Write the best argument against your own position that you can — for example, that the many groups at a meeting show power is shared, that a few people settled the real question before any vote, that flexible hours are a real freedom, or that the app sets the pace and the pay. Argue it honestly; a weak objection you knock over earns no credit.
3. Your answer to it (roughly 100 words). Respond to that objection. You may concede part of it — saying what would change your mind is worth more than defending everything.
4. One thing you would still check (one or two sentences). What evidence would you want, read at its source with its year, to settle it?

Effort. Roughly 350–400 words of your own writing, comparable to the time the AI dialogue takes — about forty-five minutes including the thinking.

What you submit. Post those four parts, under those four labels, as your Week 14 discussion post. That post is your entire submission; this route has no share link.

No replies to classmates are required.

Participation rubric

This discussion is worth 10 points. The same three criteria score both routes.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com