Week |
Subject |
Related Preparation |
1) |
Introduction |
|
2) |
Introducing framework and historical background |
*Introduction, Green Planet Blues (Conca, Alberty and Dabelko ed.s, 1995), p. 3-12.
Visual material: Planet Earth
|
3) |
Growth, limits, and the commons |
*Meadows, Meadows, Randers and Behrens III. 1998.‘The Nature of Exponential Growth’, in Debating the Earth, The Environmental Politics Reader, Dryzec and Schlosberg eds. p. 9-22.
*Hardin. 1995 (1968).‘The Tragedy of the Commons’, in Conca, Alberty and Dabelko (eds.), Green Planet Blues, p. 38-45.
Feeny, Berkes, McCay, Acheson. 1995 (1990).‘The Tragedy of the Commons: Twenty-Two Years Later’, in Conca, Alberty and Dabelko (eds.), Green Planet Blues: p. 53-62.
*Ostrom, E. 1994. ‘Neither market nor state: Governance of common-pool resources in the twenty-first century’, Lecture series 2, International Food Policy Research Institute.
**choice of project actor due**
|
4) |
Environment and development: the sustainability debate-I |
*World Commission on Environment and Development. 2004. ‘From One Earth to One World’, in F. J. Lechner and J. Boli (eds.), The Globalization Reader, Blackwell: p.366-372.
UN Conference on Environment and Development, ‘Rio Declaration on Environment and Development’, in F. J. Lechner and J. Boli (eds.), The Globalization Reader, Blackwell: p. 373-376.
*Daly, H. E. 1998 (1990). ‘Sustainable Growth: An Impossibility Theorem’, in Debating the Earth, Environmental Politics Reader, J. Dryzec and D. Schlosberg (eds.), Oxford University Press: p. 285-289.
|
5) |
Environment and development: the sustainability debate- II |
*Carruthers, D. 2005 (2000). ‘From Opposition to Orthodoxy’: the Remaking of Sustainable Development’ in Debating the Earth, Environmental Politics Reader, J. Dryzec and D. Schlosberg (eds.), Oxford University Press: p. 285-300.
Baker, S. 2007, ‘Sustainable development as symbolic commitment: Declaratory politics and the seductive appeal of ecological modernization in the European Union’, Environmental Politics, 16:2, 297-317.
Meadowcroft, J. 2005 (2000). ‘Sustainable Development: A New(ish) Idea for a New Century?’, in Debating the Earth, Environmental Politics Reader, J. Dryzec and D. Schlosberg (eds.), Oxford University Press: p. 265-284.
Visual material: Learning from Ladakh
|
6) |
Environment and modernity: ecological modernization, risk society, deep ecology (anthropocentric versus ecological views) |
*Barry, J. 2005 (2003). ‘Ecological Modernization’ in Debating the Earth, Environmental Politics Reader, J. Dryzec and D. Schlosberg (eds.), Oxford University Press: p. 303-321.
York, R., E. A. Rosa, and T. Dietz. 2003. “Footprints on the Earth: the Environmental Consequences of Modernity”, American Sociological Review, 68, 2: 279-300.
Mol, A. P. J. 2002. ‘Ecological Modernization and the Global Economy’, Global Environmental Politics, 2 (February): 92-115.
*Beck, U. 1998 (1992). ‘From Industrial Society to the Risk Society: Questions of Survival, Social Structure, and Ecological Enlightment’, in Debating the Earth, Environmental Politics Reader, J. Dryzec and D. Schlosberg (eds.), Oxford University Press: p. 327-346.
|
7) |
Environment and modernity II: deep ecology, anthropocentric versus ecological views, political ecology |
*Dobson, A., 2003, ‘Ch.3: Ecological Citizenship’ in Citizenship and the Environment, Oxford University Press: p. 92-102, 105-108, 111-115.
‘Green political economy and the promise of the social economy’, J. Barry and G. Smith in Handbook of Global Environmental Politics, P. Dauverge (ed.), 2005, UK and USA: Edward Elgar.
Bakker, K. 2007. ‘The ‘Commons’ Versus’ the ‘Commodity’: Alter-globalization, Anti-privatization and the Human Right to Water in the Global South’, Antipode.
Arsel, M, B. Akbulut, ve F. Adaman. 2016. ‘Türkiye’de Kalkınmacılığı Yeniden Okumak: Hes’ler ve dönüşen Devlet-Toplum-Doğa İlişkileri’, İletişim.
Paker, H. 2017. ‘The politics of serving’ and neoliberal developmentalism: the megaprojects of the AKP as tools of hegemony building’, in Adaman, Akbulut and Arsel (ed.), Neoliberal Turkey and its discontents: Economic policy and the environment under Erdoğan’, I. B. Tauris.
|
8) |
Framing the problem: The environmental movement |
*Agyeman, J. et al. 2016. ‘Trends and Directions in Environmental Justice: From Inequity to Everyday Life, Community, and Just Sustainabilities’, Annual Review of Environment and Resources
*Doherty, B. and T. Doyle, 2006, ‘Beyond Borders: Transnational politics, social movements and modern environmentalisms’, Environmental Politics, 15, 5: 697-712.
Keck, M. and K. Sikkink. 1998. Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
|
9) |
Urgent matters: climate change |
*Genovese, F., 2014, ‘States’ interests at international climate negotiations: new measures of bargaining positions’, Environmental Politics, 23, 4: 610-631.
*Bäckstrand, Karin, Jonathan W. Kuyper, Björn-Ola Linnér & Eva Lövbrand, 2017, Non-state actors in global climate governance: from Copenhagen to Paris and beyond, Environmental Politics, 26:4, 561-579.
*Vanderheiden, S., 2011, ‘The Politics of Energy: An introduction’, Environmental Politics, 20, 5:607-616.
Visual material: Age of Stupid
**Assignment 1 due**
https://juliesbicycle.com/resource_hub/climate-literacy-101/
**Presentation outline due**
|
10) |
The global commons: limits of national politics and issues of governance |
Newell. 2005. ‘Towards a political economy of global environmental governance’ in P. Dauverge (eds.), Handbook of Global Environmental Politics, Edward Elgar: 187-201.
*Soroos. 2005. ‘Garret Hardin and tragedies of global commons’, in P. Dauverge (eds.), Handbook of Global Environmental Politics, Edward Elgar.
*Downie, C., 2014, ‘Transnational actors in environmental politics: strategies and influence in long negotiations’, Environmental Politics, 23, 3: 376-394.
|
11) |
Presentations |
|
12) |
Presentations |
|
13) |
Environmental Politics in Turkey |
*Arsel, M., B. Akbulut, and F. Adaman. 2015. ‘Environmentalism of the malcontent: anatomy of an anti-coal power plant struggle’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 42, 2: 371- 395.
*Paker, H., F. Adaman, Z. Kadirbeyoglu, and B Ozkaynak, 2013, ‘Environmental organizations in Turkey: engaging the state and finance capital’, Environmental Politics, 22, 5: 760-778.
Kadirbeyoglu, Z. 2005. ‘Assessing the Efficacy of Transnational Advocacy Networks’ in Environmentalism in Turkey: Between Democracy and Development,F. Adaman and M. Arsel (eds.), Ashgate: p. 101-116.
|
14) |
Review and general evaluation |
|
|
Program Outcomes |
Level of Contribution |
1) |
To learn and compare major sociology perspectives, both classical and contemporary, and apply all of them to analysis of social conditions. |
|
2) |
To be able to identify the basic methodological approaches in building sociological and anthropological knowledge at local and global levels |
|
3) |
To be able to use theoretical and applied knowledge acquired in the fields of statistics in social sciences. |
|
4) |
To have a basic knowledge of other disciplines (including psychology, history, political science, communication studies and literature) that can contribute to sociology and to be able to make use of this knowledge in analyzing sociological processes |
|
5) |
To have a knowledge and practice of scientific and ethical principles in collecting, interpreting and publishing sociological data also develop ability how to share this data with experts and lay people, using effective communication skills |
|
6) |
To develop competence in analyzing and publishing sociological knowledge by using computer software for quantitative and qualitative analysis; and develop an attitute for learning new techniques in these fields. |
|
7) |
To identify and to have a knowledge of the theories related to urban and rural sociology and demography, and political sociology, sociology of gender, sociology of body, visual sociology, sociology of work, sociology of religion, sociology of knowledge and sociology of crime. |
|
8) |
To have knowledge of how sociology is positioned as a scientific discipline from a philosophical and historical perspective |
|
9) |
To have the awareness of social issues in Turkish society, to develop critical perspective in analysing these issues and to have a knowledge of the works of Turkish sociologists and to be able to transfer this knowledge |
|
10) |
To have the awareness of social issues and global societal processes and to apply sociological analysis to development and social responsibility projects |
|
11) |
To have the ability to define a research question, design a research project and complete a written report for various fields of sociology, either as an individual or as a team member. |
|
12) |
To be able to transfer the knowledge gained in the areas of sociology to the level of secondary school. |
|