Questions for Week 9 in CMJR 450:

Question 1:
Over the last several years (I would say since I began attending Seattle University in 2006) the university has been trying very hard to show a new image or movement on campus. It has been apparent in how they have been spending money to expand, put down a huge university seal at the entrance of the school and etc. In chapter ten several key discussions are made about transcendence and how social groups transcend to higher levels over time. Persuaders “claim that a goal, group, or right, for instance, is superior to or greater than all other options” (Pg 226). My question is, what exactly is the goal of the Jesuits in this new campaign to re-brand Seattle University in obtaining a Jesuit education and what exactly is Seattle University using to persuade other people that obtaining an education at Seattle University is “superior to or greater than all other options”. Are there options? Bruke argues, “Thus, the goal, group, or right has not reached an ultimate state of perfection but is more perfect or more preferable than its opposite” (Pg 226). How is Seattle University more perfect than the other? Who exactly is Seattle University and the message trying to reach or compare against? Is this a private school vs. public school issue? Is it a religious private school vs. other private schools? What do you think and explain your thinking behind what movement Seattle University as an institution is trying to create?

Question 2:
In our text Persuasion and Social Movements chapter 14 discusses different kinds of power. In the second paragraph on page 322, Andrew King discusses how power is derived and claims that 3 distinct areas are responsible for the creation of power in society. Those areas include: “material resource base, psychosocial base, and organizational/ syntactic base” (Pg 322). King states that, “Today the material resource is information or knowledge, and access to it confers power on groups and individuals” (Pg 322). He also claims, “The psychosocial base provides group members with a sense of identity that binds them through common interests, habits, culture, and values” (322). His last claim is, “Organizational/syntactic bases of power include legislative rules, regulations, and norms of behavior” (322). I have several questions relating to what King discusses. First, What specific information or knowledge does Seattle University have over other Universities and do you think that access to that information or knowledge confers power on us as students? If so how much power and does that information differ from say, The University of Washington’s information or knowledge on that same topic? Does that difference in access to the information or knowledge really justify the price tag for a private education at Seattle University? What sense of identity does Seattle University instill on students that relate to developing a sense of common interests, habits, culture and values? Does one exist and is that enough of a commonality to make you feel a part of the group? What’s your personal experience with identity on campus at Seattle University? Do you have one? Lastly, do you think the way Seattle University operates, as an institution with “legislative rules, regulations and norms of behavior” is justifiable? Are the number of rules, procedures, regulations and norms of behavior really necessary on campus? If yes then why, if no then why and explain your answers.

Question 3:
Do a comparison and contrast between the five different kinds of power and Andrew King’s three different areas of where power is developed. The five different kinds of power are identified as Legitimate, Coercive, Reward, Referent and Expert Power (Pg 321-322). Andrew King identifies the main forms of power as coming from, “a material resource base, psychosocial base, and organizational/syntactic base” (Pg 322). How do you think is more accurate and why? If you look at each power structure and how it applies to Seattle University, which is more accurate in describing how Seattle University operates as an institution? The last sentence in paragraph 2 on page 322 of our text makes the statement, “Power, then, is a multidimensional offensive and defensive weapon shared unequally by institutions and social movements because of the nature of social order” (Pg 322). Would you agree or disagree? How does Seattle University fall into this idea and how exactly would you define the nature of social order at Seattle University? Is there a perceived reason for the hierarchy or is it overkill? Why or why not and explain your answer.