Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Philosophy of Power

Gazing into the crystal ball of power, for my class of Philosophy of Power at IES Abroad Rome
by

Alberto Bitonti

on 27 November 2016

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Philosophy of Power

POWER
Government
The Squares
Aristotle
Weber
Philosophy
of

Fear
Guglielmo Ferrero
The principles
of legitimacy
hereditary
pre-legitimacy
Revolutionary
spirit
Legitimacy
The Principles of Power
(Putnam, New York, 1942)
aristo-monarchic
elective
democratic
quasi-legitimacy
despotism
violent, arbitrary
Talleyrand
Aristotle
Logos
Ethos
Pathos
facts
reason
Values
Legitimacy
Credibility
emotions
irrational
St. Augustine (De Civitate Dei, Liber IV):

the story of Alexander the Great and the pirate

"Quia ego exiguo navigio facio, latro vocor; quia tu magna classe, imperator"
Greimas
Floch
A
E
I
O
S1
S2
~S2
~S1
contradictory
sub-contrary
contrary
subaltern
utility
utopian
cost-effectiveness
critical
practical
use
values
basic
values
ludic
recreational, playful
mythical, existential
square of oppositions
semiotic
square
axiological
square (valorization)
The process of government (1908)
organization
techniques
INTEREST GROUPS
relations
number
intensity
Bentley
resources
Truman
The governmental process (1951)
updates Bentley's theory
PLAYERS
Business
Media
Parties
Think Tanks
NGOs
CITIZENS
INTEREST GROUPS
Unions
The lobbying industry
in-house lobbyists
public affairs consultants
STRATEGIES IN
direct
lobbying
grassroots
lobbying
political financing
coalitions
THE FRAMING EFFECT
37.50
monopoly of the
open society
liberal-democracy
elite theory
pluralist theory
Vilfredo
Pareto
Robert
Michels
Floyd
Hunter
Charles
Wright Mills
Robert
Dahl
FORCE
legitimate
Hello
everyone!
Unfortunately
I have no voice today
(have been coughing for a week)
That's why,
instead of canceling the lesson,
we may try
something different
a
ROLE-PLAYING
GAME
You play, and
at the end we try to draw some insight
(that had to be my lesson of today
How do you see it?

Are you willing to try?
I DIDN'T HEAR YOU!
Ok, let's begin.

Step 1.

Take two minutes and write down two
controversial
topics of your interest
Controversial topics are political issues where
public opinion is split
Examples can be:
gay marriage, PRISM (government surveillance program), a military intervention abroad, climate change,
whatever
Step 2

Let's see what are the most interesting topics
to the class
(everyone reads his/hers)
Step 3

Let's pick up one.
Then I want you to create
two teams, according to the basic opinion you have on the issue
TEAMS

I want you to be in the team that supports the OTHER point of view
As Machiavelli taught us,
we must be ready to change our point of view when needed.
Furthermore, it's about being able to persuade, manipulate, increase power. You should be able to do this with ANY point of view
Ok.
Now you (the two teams) have 15 minutes, where you have to design a campaign in order to advocate for your point of view
Try to find all the arguments, the rationales, the ways to support your cause. Try also to anticipate your opponent's moves
Step 4 is a debate between the two teams,
where you alternatively have one minute to convince the "public opinion" (us) that you are right and they are wrong
Those of you who don't have a particular opinion about it will form a "special team" with me.
We'll represent
PUBLIC OPINION
TIME
TO DEBATE!

(be ruthless!)
Opening statements first (two minutes per team).
Then each team has one minute (alternatively) to engage in the debate, advancing your view or contrasting the opponent's one
You choose who speaks every time. It can be a "team champion" or someone different every time. Totally up to you.
READY?
After ten minutes of debate (so 5 statements for each side), each team has an additional minute for a concluding statement.
Use it wisely.
(random order)
If you want you can also use computers, or class computer.
Time limits will be strictly respected in any case.
opening
statement
debate
concluding
statement
At the end, each member of the public opinion group will give a vote
(1 to 10) to each team.
The sum of all the points will determine the winning team
VOTE NOW!
And the winner is...
Congratulations!
Now,
let's try to understand what different kinds of arguments can be used,
and which one is more or less effective
(even if it always depends, of course)
in the next episode...
... but I definitely need my voice for that.
Thank you all!
Gaetano
Mosca
political class
circulation of the élites
iron law of oligarchy
Community Power Structure
(1953): Atlanta
The Power Elite
(1956): United States
Who Governs?: Democracy and Power in an American City
(1961): New Haven, CT
poliarchy
democratic equilibrium
legal authority, money, prestige, skill, knowledge, charisma, legitimacy,
free time, experience, etc.
monarchy
plutocracy
aristocracy
oligarchy
rate of interaction
potential groups
State of readiness
ACCESS
direct democracy
timocracy
theocracy
A lesson from Economics
asymmetries
information
interest
organization
LOBBYING
stratocracy
anarchy
Full transcript