Frame

The Foundations category of the Communications Studies curriculum is intended to ground students in the main theoretical frameworks that inform communications research and explain communication practice.  In addition to such theories, the category description and Learning Objectives also call for attention to the ethics involved in every level of communication inquiry.  The reciprocal nature of communication is emphasized in our course offerings; this implies accountability on both sides.  Intent, practice, and consequences of communication events are a central concern of Comm Studies scholars.

This project gave me the chance to practice these principles.  For the class, Rhetoric and Public Life, the final assignment was to design a university-level course that explored the nature and ethics of using rhetoric in civic life. The central idea of my course was that self-interest can and should be a tool for positive social change.  We were to use the central idea as the foundation for all decisions on assignments, readings, class policy and grading. 

What follows here is the essay explaining the structure and rationale for the course, and the syllabus.

 

Introduction and Thesis:

If you search an online thesaurus for synonyms for “self-interest”, you are offered such loaded terms as “insolence” and “egocentricity”.  None of these words hint at the power of self-interest to motivate or persuade.  Instead, they bring to mind pure selfishness.  It is my position that self-interest has a moral core that can be directed towards positive change.  Further, it is within the scope of higher education’s mission to discuss and reveal how self-interest can be used to build alliances based on trust and common purpose, give voice to needs in a community, and show us as individuals that although differences are real, commonalities can unite us in the creation of a better society.  The purpose of my class is to explore the moral implications of self-interest, how personal habits have the power to create trust or division that affects the common good, and how larger powers assert their self-interest within the political system that can conflict with the common good.

 

Overview of class design

The class is divided into three sections representing three levels of public engagement.  We begin with the individual, then groups of identity, and finally systemic influences on the political process. The centerpiece project for this class is the crafting of a ballot measure as it would appear in a typical sample ballot for voter consideration, and each task in its composition will be completed while exploring each of those levels of engagement.  The three Learning Objectives also coincide with each of these sections and their corresponding project tasks.  Sincere, consistent efforts to participate are rewarded, bringing together the idea that acting in your own self-interest also benefits the experience of the class community. Opportunities to use rhetoric, and process the rhetoric of others appear in the first presentation assignment when the student must argue for and against their partner’s ballot proposal, as well as participating in class discussions (prompted by the instructor systematically calling on each student to comment several times throughout the term).   The reading/viewing assignments vary in difficulty to reinforce that self-interest may be immediate and personally apparent, but also a complex idea given public and academic attention.  The expectation is the same, however; demonstrate that you have completed them on time and with your best effort to receive the best grade and most meaningful feedback.

The decision to use a hybrid format acknowledges the reality that students may have their own reasons for needing to access the class remotely, either occasionally or routinely.  Although participation is key to this class, the online format need not interfere with the quality of engagement.  Kuo, Walker, Belland, and Schroder (2013) found that the two chief predictors of student satisfaction in distance learning were learner-content interaction and learner-instructor interaction.  The design of this course emphasizes engagement with the instructor in real time, as well as the discussion content.

Level 1 - the Individual

The class starts with an exploration of individual self-interest.  The video and two readings represent fairly centrist views about the role self-interest plays in political, social and economic (Reading 1) life, and they will make up the bulk of our lecture material in this part of the class.  Gauthier (Reading 2) introduces us to the idea that doing the right thing for your own interests (prudence) is one level of moral public engagement, but doing the right thing even if it works against your interests (trustworthiness) completes a moral system that works towards the common good.   Jordan (Reading 3) continues discussion of the common good by supporting a view I took in answer to the “Q” Question - that public behavior or discourse must be founded on a concern for the health of the community.  The idea of exit politics, the strategy of removing oneself from public participation in some way to express disapproval, was also going to be introduced during lecture, as store boycotts, school vouchers, and abstaining from voting are all examples of individual behavior that seek to bring change based on individual interests.  With a background in the philosophical underpinnings of self-interest, we would turn to how those ideas inform which public efforts we support and why.  For example, following Gauthier’s discussion of prudence and trustworthiness, how can rhetoric build support for a ballot measure that would raise your taxes but fund a program of demonstrable benefit to the community? Why do some such measures fail and some pass on election day?   Jordan questions the moral virtue of an individualistic society, yet that is what American pride themselves in.  Americans also take great pride in community.  How can rhetoric address that tension when it comes to accomplishing public business?  

This would serve as an introduction to the semester-long project, the formation of a ballot measure idea that the student feels would benefit him personally.  Learning Objective 1 is met in this section, as students use the conceptual foundations of self-interest to examine what they would seek to bring about in public policy.

Level 2 - Identity Politics

The second level of public engagement will explore how our identification with a group within the community, based on gender, religion, ethnicity, economic or citizenship status, or sexual orientation to name a few, affects how we perceive our self-interest.  This is the point at which the student is asked to think beyond his own interests and consider the perspectives of those different from him.  The brief video (Reading 4) introduces standpoint theory, which posits that how much privilege our identity in society affords us is intrinsic to our worldview.  It would be useful here to explore the fact that privilege is often not something that one person has and another doesn’t - almost all of us can point to parts of our identity which give us advantages and parts which take advantage away.  The identity that dominates our self image also colors our view of who belongs and who doesn’t, what counts as fair and what society should correct. Standpoint is a complex, controversial theory and we will not consider all its arguments, but the student is invited at this point to think about his ballot idea from the viewpoint of someone different, whose interests may even conflict with his.  The Allen reading (5) revives Aristotle’s definition of political friendship within the context of personal habits, which figured prominently in our classroom definition of public life.  Students will learn here how personal rhetoric connects to the vitality of public life by either fostering or undermining trust, which is required for political friendship with those unfamiliar to us.  We would explore Allen’s central point that political friendship is not an emotional response to people we agree with.  Rather, it is a set of practices that are cultivated to further the work of running the good society.  

The project task now is the development of pro and con arguments and rebuttals for each as they would appear in a sample ballot.  Students have had a chance to consider how their measure might affect others, and will practice seeing their issue from another perspective with the team presentations.  Here, students are paired by the instructor, then exchange measures.  Each student will give tenable arguments pro and con for their partner’s measure, and present as a team.  Learning Objective 2 is accomplished at this level with the completion of the project task and the team presentations.  

 

Level 3 - System Influences

In the final part of the class, students will look at political forces that seem too embedded in the system to be subject to the influence of an individual, but which are motivated by self-interest just the same.  The ushistory.org reading (6) is a basic overview of special interest groups, lobbies, and PACS.  It reminds the reader that, although SIGs have developed a negative reputation for having too much power, individuals in a democracy are free to form groups to further their interests.  The Youtube video (7) gives a more practical tutorial on this aspect of the political process.  Finally, the Olson reading (8) troubles the whole notion that individuals who form large groups will work together to affect change that will benefit its members.  This study observes that they won’t, unless coerced or compensated.  This reading is included to hark back to the “Q” Question, asking again if the compelling rhetoric of an organized, motivated and articulate group will use its influence for positive or negative ends.

The final task in the ballot measure project is finding support for the measure.  Students will research and identify two special interest groups that might reasonably endorse their measure and one major financial contributor.  Even though the student will not be approaching these groups in reality, the student’s research must point to the groups’ credible, if hypothetical interest in the measure passing.   The profile of each group must show why they might lend their support, including the group’s stated purpose, financial backing, previous endorsements/sponsorship, and other relevant alliances.   Based on the information in lectures and readings, the student must explain how the group would demonstrate their support using typical political strategies.

 

Conclusion

Quintilian asked, “Does skillful rhetoric conduce more towards good or evil?”  My answer is towards good, because the individual has a selfish interest in seeing his community thrive.  The course I have designed gives the student the opportunity to agree or disagree based on readings, class discussions, and projects that begin in self-interest but must be completed after considering the interests of others.  The student will see that self-interest is not synonymous with selfishness in the pejorative sense.  It is a natural instinct, at its most basic.  But it can also be a set of behaviors that are tuned towards social progress and constructive public business.  By supporting a self-interested position with evidence and reasoning, an individual can build trust with people who may not agree with him, laying the foundation for political friendship.  In addition, an individual can form a group with others that furthers his own interests, but as a group they can accomplish more than they might individually.  However, there is evidence that a self-interested motivation can undermine good public efforts.  Groups can fall victim to group dynamics that sap focus and determination.  Some philosophers question the assumptions behind civic minded behavior among the personally motivated.  I maintain my belief that commitment to community is a survival technique for humans, and therefore a self-interested motivation.  But when sheer survival is no longer in question and people are considering business that merely affirms or contests their view of the world, rhetoric then becomes a political tool bringing results that may have little to do with the public good.  

 

San José State University

Communication Studies Department

COMM 149X, Politics of Self-Interest, Fall 2023

 

Instructor:	Dr. Mary Rothgeb
Office Location:	Barack Obama Hall 308
Telephone:	408-866-6550
Email:	mary.rothgeb@sjsu.edu
Office Hours:	Mon and Wed, 1:30-4:30
Class Days/Time:	MW 10:30am-12:00noon
Classroom:	HGH 222
Prerequisites:	100W and upper division standing

 

Catalog Description

This course explores how self-interest is expressed at the individual, social group, and systemic levels in the making of public policy.

Course Description

This course will examine how self-interest, both transparent and hidden, influences the political process.  Expanding our perspective from the individual to system-wide, we will consider the morality of self-interest, identity politics, and the role of special interests against the backdrop of civic duty and education.

 

Course Media

This will be a hybrid course, conducted in-person and via Elluminate Live each session. Students have the choice of attending in the classroom or from a computer with internet.  Also, we will have a Canvas class website where you access class readings, post assignments, find your grades, etc.

Succeeding in this Course

Where personal practice is concerned, I strongly encourage you to attend every class, either online or in person.  I will assume that you have finished the homework reading/viewing by the date in the class schedule.  Readings and class discussions will inform your notions of the benefits and drawbacks of expressing self-interest in public discourse, which in turn will be reflected in your final project.  Between class time and homework, you should expect to devote a minimum of seven hours a week to this class.

 

Where personal attitude is concerned, you will get more out of this class if you remain open to the idea that self-interest is, rather than simple selfishness, both a birthright and a powerful tool with moral implications.

Course Learning Outcomes

After successfully completing this course, you will: 

Course Learning Objective 1:  Locate the element of self-interest in a public proposal and discern the positive and negatives aspects of its motivation.

Course Learning Objective 2:  Craft a credible argument both for and against a public proposal, based on an exploration of how it would affect both you and people with different priorities and attitudes from you.

Course Learning Objective 3:  Demonstrate an understanding of the rules and methods employed by politically motivated special interest groups to influence public policy.

Required and Recommended Course Materials and Readings

1.  Self-interest v. Social interest and the invisible hand.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P08cWVYZwmg

This is a basic explanation of the microeconomic principle of prosperity derived from self-interested behavior.  My essay prompt would ask for real-life examples that both support and challenge this principle, to get the student thinking about how valid a model it is for personal conduct.

 Gauthier, David.  “Morality and Self-Interest.”  Self-Interest:  An Anthology of Philosophical Perspectives.  Ed. Kelly Rogers.  New York:  Routledge, 1997.  253-264.  Print.

Gauthier’s definition of a moral system examines the difference between prudence and trustworthiness in personal and political decisions.  My essay prompt:  Identify three quotes in the reading, and support or refute.

Jordan, Bill.  “Citizenship and Social Morality.”  The Common Good:  Citizenship, Morality and Self-Interest.  Oxford:  Basil Blackwell, 1989.  67-89.

This chapter gives some historical perspective on the concept of the common good, and argues for several key features of its role in meeting the needs of a community.  After so much writing homework, I would give the quiz online (Canvas), to be due the following day by midnight.

4.  Standpoint theory.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmBMcTVXgrk

This short video illustrates standpoint theory through performed vignettes.  Although the scenes seem to depict simple bigotry at first glance, I would ask students to reflect on why the characters act as they do.  How the characters‘ background, and the student’s own background influence how they interpret motive in others.

  Allen, Danielle.  “Rhetoric, A Good Thing.”  Talking to Strangers:  Anxieties of Citizenship since Brown v. Board of Education.  Chicago:  University of Chicago Press, 2004.  140-159.  

If students read nothing else, I would want them to read this chapter.  The concepts of political friendship, its prerequisite, goodwill, and the personal rhetorical acts that can bring them about is critical to the idea of both using and mastering our own self-interested motives.

6.   Interest Groups.  http://wps.ablongman.com/long_edwards_ga_12/0,10640,2180245-,00.html

This reading is a detailed primer on special interest groups.  

7.  Political Parties and Interest Groups. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOOF8p3Q11E

Classroom Protocol and Policies

Policy on Academic Integrity:  My policy is consistent with the university’s - plagiarism will not be tolerated.  If you are caught submitting someone else’s work as your own, you will fail that assignment.  You will be dropped from the class if you fail an oral examination on the same subject, given by me.  Unpleasantness makes me a harsh grader, which would not be in your self-interest.

Attendance and Participation:  As detailed in the grading policy, points are given for class participation.  It has everything to do with completing the readings and making a sincere effort to  interpret them.  You are accustomed to instructors exhorting you to participate for your own good, but you are entitled to take this course for your own reasons.  If only a passing grade, which can be achieved with poor participation, meets your personal needs then that is your choice.  However, I also have goals for this class, and I will continue to call on everyone equally to get them met.  I genuinely hope you find it in your self-interest, and by extension the good of the class, to come to class prepared and curious about the topic at hand.

You have the choice of attending in-person or via the Elluminate site, which allows you to post your contributions during class for immediate viewing and response by anyone in attendance.  Online attendance must be during the class to earn participation points.  You will not be able to participate if you view the session afterwards, but you can still see what was covered in class if you have an unavoidable conflict.   

Late Work Policy:  As detailed in the grading policy, you will lose points for not turning work in on time, but I will accept work turned in one class session late.   Note that the the percentage of “on time” points increases a bit over time.  

Policy on electronic and mobile devices in the classroom:  I expect any laptop or tablet use in class to be directly related to the discussion.  If you seem particularly fascinated with your machine you should expect to be called on a bit more often.  No one takes notes on a phone so their use is forbidden in class.

Discussion Protocol:  Exploring different ways of looking at an issue is central to this class, so I would expect disagreements to arise.  In fact, I think they are one sign of a successful class.  Think before responding to something that bothers you, and make sure your comments are intended to move the conversation forward.  

Assignments

The main project will be completed throughout the semester, with the major tasks undertaken in each of the three main parts of the course.   Each student will craft a ballot measure as it appears in a typical sample ballot, including detailed description, arguments pro and con with rebuttals for each side, and a list of supporters.  In addition, there will be seven reading or viewing homework assignments.  Five of these will require a 250-word response based on an essay prompt gleaned from the reading.  There will be quizzes on the other two.  There will be two class presentations:  two-person teams will trade ballot measure proposals and present pro and con arguments; a solo final presentation on the completed  measure project. 

Grading policy and procedures

Each class will begin with a handful of questions about the reading being discussed.  I will call on specific students for each of those questions.  If you are present and able to at least attempt a credible answer, you will get a +.  If you are not present or are unable to at least attempt a credible answer, you will get a -.  Over the course of the semester, each student will likely get called on about 5 times.  These questions will account for 10% of your final grade.

 

The 5 essays and 2 quizzes will account for another 35% of your final grade (5% each).  

 

Your ballot measure project will account for 30% of your final grade.  This will be broken down as follows:    

                2% for getting the first level completed and submitted on time

                4% from the grade you receive on that first level

                2% for getting the pro/con arguments completed and submitted on time

                5% from the grade you receive on those arguments

                3% for getting the final project completed and submitted on time

                4% for your presentation to the class

                15% from your overall grade on the project

If you miss any of those due dates, I will still accept your submissions as late as the next time class meets, though you will lose the points for having it done on time.

 

Your final exam will account for 20% of your final grade.  It will be a written exam and will cover all the material discussed throughout the semester.  

 

Class attendance is necessary in order to have broad-ranging, productive discussions.  To that end, if you miss more than three classes over the course of the semester, your final grade will be dropped one letter.