Political science and IR society

Scroll to see replies

02mik_e

The only books i ve bought so far are On Liberty & The Prince, are there any others people can recommend. Someone high advised i should buy Andrew Heywood introduction to Politics

I found 'Prince' very interesting - I would as well be interested in "similar" type of books.
Have you read any of them? - I have started slightly on some stuff of Plato, though finding it not as easy to read as Machiavelli (this is more leaned towards philosophy though, than Machiavelli).

Reply 41

Vesta

I've bought "The Political Animal" by Jeremy Paxman, I keep meaning to get round to reading it... it looks interesting

Reply 42

02mik_e

Bismarck

Classical texts are fine and all that, but you won't understand the field until you read some real introductory books.

Is there any you could recommend? because i feel i actually need something to introduce me first :smile:

Reply 43

Socrates

Heywood's books are very good; easy to read and good explainations.

Reply 44

Kitty Pimms

Bismarck

A bismark for those writing Bismark. :wink:

Sorry! In my defense, it was getting late and I was trying to keep half an eye out for whatever rubbish was on TV at the time. :wink:

Bismarck

It's not really a uniform theory yet; it's more of a way of approaching foreign policy. I'm not familiar with MLG theory (I didn't really study integration and that kind of thing), but I assume it's something similar to two-stage negotiations, right? Anyway, most people within this school start with the assumption that the international system has a major constraining effect on a country's foreign policy. But unlike neorealists, they accept that it's not the only constraint and it doesn't force countries to adopt certain foreign policies (just steers them in that direction). They also claim that domestic variables, such as needing to mobilize resources or maintain public support, act as foreign policy constraints, which leads rulers to adopt policies that might not necessarily be in their best-interest. Some classical examples include Truman drumming up anti-communist sentiment in order to gain public support for helping Greece and Turkey fight off their communist insurgents and Mao Zedong raising the prospect of war with Taiwan in order to stifle criticism for his Great Leap Forward. Having said that, this whole area is really undertheorized, and I'm hoping to do something about that for my Ph.D. :smile:

MLG is basically a theory of how different levels interact to influence policy-making; as you probably know it's mainly arisen in the context of the EU and the methods of managing the structural funds. So it's both a temporal and jurisdictional account of how governance is becoming more complex, regionalised and hollowed. So in that respect it does sound similar, although MLG itself seems (ironically) less constructivist in that it doesn't tend to define the interpretivist effects of the multi-level 'constraints'. So actually that does sound like there's a correlation - and certainly I'll have to read up more on neo-classical realism, since it sounds convincing. If you want someone to proofread bits of your doc, I'd be interested?

Bismarck

I don't think there's that much difference between them. Just find one that doesn't use complex language. Since everyone here seems to be recommending Hyywood, go for that one.

The other one I really like is Hampsher-Monk, but again it's not really an introductory text I wouldn't have said. twentieth century political thought is much easier to hunt down since it's mostly journal articles (and more interesting, IMHO!) but I didn't cover that stuff until my final year and I'm guessing it's unlikely to be a first year course at many universities.

Bismarck

I could help with an IR book list. :smile:

Please do!! As you can see I left it blank so any contributions greatfully received. :redface:

The other thing I wanted to ask you and Sock was whether you fancied adding something to the 'life as a politics student' section of the wiki? As you can see I did mine and datestamped it, so if you fancy doing likewise I think that would be really great.

Reply 45

Kitty Pimms

Mike_P

The prince is good fun. As for first year books, I found we covered: Plato, Aristotle, Machievelli, Hobbes (leviathan), Locke (two treatises), St. Augustine, Aquinas, Rousseau and probably some more that I've forgotten. To be honest though I didn't really enjoy any of them since they're so frigging ancient. I enjoyed the second and third year authors a lot more (Kant, Hume, Bentham, Marx, Nietzsche, Burke, Hegel). I'd recommend giving some of those a flick through - particularly Kant and Betham which are the most accessible - if you're finding classical philosophy a bit dry (although it's worth knowing something about social contract theory and a bit of basic 17th-19th century history first). Twentieth century Anglo-American philosophy (Rawls, Raz, Nozick, Dworkin, Frankfurt, Parfit, Cohen etc) was probably my favourite, but it moved from being historically rooted to more abstract in relation to the previous period, so it's probably not introductory.

Adam Smith's also worth a read, although it's more likely to pop up in political economy than philosophy.

I should mention that the majority of the older books above will be available on Project Gutenburg - so check there before shelling out.

Reply 46

02mik_e

have you put in a request yet?

Reply 47

Kitty Pimms

02mik_e

have you put in a request yet?

Not yet - I will, soon!

Reply 48

02mik_e

IlexAquifolium

Not yet - I will, soon!

ah ok then i think this society would be really useful particularly for prospective undergrads. I am about to start my PS, so what sort of things should i be looking to put in it, as i want to do Politics. I am applying for a summer pacement at Christian aid, so hopefully i should get that :smile:

Reply 49

Kitty Pimms

02mik_e

Put that in, then! The most important thing is to explain and demonstrate why things have been important to you, or interested you. Simply telling an admissions tutor that you've read a particular book will not cut much ice - what did you think of it? Did you agree? Why? What aspects particularly made you want to study politics? What is it about politics at degree level that makes you want to study it?

A good idea too is to email admissions secretaries to ask for the first year module guides - that will give you an idea of what you'll be studying and allow you to tailor your PS to the course.

Reply 50

scribble_girl

Ilex, a low trick recruiting me like this :p:

Politics first year, with a Contested Concepts exam as of Monday 9.30. And I'm on here. Argh!
Okay, here's a question to anyone on a Politics or IR degree course; had you done Politics A-level beforehand? I didn't, and as much as friends who have done say it didn't help much, I think it would have been an advantage, if only so I hadn't felt quite so out of my 'comfort zone' in the first lectures and classes.

Reply 51

Mike_P

IlexAquifolium

Thanks a lot Ilex, your advice means a lot to me.
I feel now I have some stuff to do research on - I'm very interested in Roussaeu and Adam Smith. Seeing as you cover many of these mentioned authors in your degree, it sounds like real interesting university studies. What are you referring at when saying 'Social contract theory'?
I shall have a look at some of the works you mention from your 2:nd year. And as you say, I could wait with some of the later philosophists works.

Where at are you studying? Makes me curious!

Reply 52

Socrates

IlexAquifolium

I have been meaning to do it as some point. Gimme a couple of days.

Reply 53

e-lover

Hey guys, has anyone considered political consultancy? What is that?!

Reply 54

Socrates

scribble_girl

Okay, here's a question to anyone on a Politics or IR degree course; had you done Politics A-level beforehand? I didn't, and as much as friends who have done say it didn't help much, I think it would have been an advantage, if only so I hadn't felt quite so out of my 'comfort zone' in the first lectures and classes.

I did Politics A level, and while it wasn't a huge advantage, it did help somewhat. Though it depends on the actually content of the Politics A level (which varies from board to board and 'route' to 'route'.)

Reply 55

Socrates

e-lover

Hey guys, has anyone considered political consultancy? What is that?!

Presumably thinktanks, but I'm not sure.

Reply 56

Kitty Pimms

scribble_girl

Ilex, a low trick recruiting me like this :p:

Low tricks is what I do best. :wink:

I'm sure your exam will go fine - I think people tend to surprise themselves in exams.

Anyway, on to your question. Personally I didn't. I'm quite ambivalent towards the benefit; undoubtedly people who'd done it before found British Politics modules easier but I don't think this necessarily transferred elsewhere. I felt completely out of my depth when I started without any prior experience and this wasn't helped by the odd up-themselves individual who'd taken the A-level and thus stuck their hand up in every seminar. In fact I felt horribly outdone and stupid. However, as I'm sure you've discovered, politics at degree (unlike A-level) isn't about knowing the 'right' answer and this difference in approaches surfaced very soon once the first terms essays were written. If anything, those without the prior knowledge had an advantage in several ways - they didn't assume that their knowledge would be enough, and they tended to have a more creative way of tackling the questions as a result. In fact, the people without the A-level tended to do better in the first term as a result. So while I think it's advantageous in terms of background knowledge, I think it fosters complacency, which is not a good thing.

Mike_P

I feel now I have some stuff to do research on - I'm very interested in Roussaeu and Adam Smith. Seeing as you cover many of these mentioned authors in your degree, it sounds like real interesting university studies. What are you referring at when saying 'Social contract theory'?
I shall have a look at some of the works you mention from your 2:nd year. And as you say, I could wait with some of the later philosophists works.

Where at are you studying? Makes me curious!

Smith is really great. His style's a little cumbersome at times, but the things he says are very interesting in terms of the contribution they've made to others' arguments. Rousseau too is a good basis for social contract theorists and can be related to Hobbes, Locke, and Hume if you end up covering those. Social contract theory is a fundamental idea in political philosophy; it's quite axiomatic - it seeks to find a basis for state legitimacy, essentially, by uncovering the conditions under which citizens agree to relinquish elements of their individual liberty to a sovereign state. The problem is squaring hypothetical justifications with 'real' ones, and it's an argument that continues - Rawls tried to address it in the 1970s with the original position, and it's still very much an open debate. As for me, I'm a political scientist - about to graduate from my first degree and I'm doing an MA and PhD starting in September.

PS - you can all sign up to the soc now! There's a link in the first post. :smile:

Reply 57

Kitty Pimms