UNIT GUIDE 2016/17
SOCI30074 Religion and Politics in the West
Weeks: 1 – 12
Teaching Block: 1
Unit Owner:
Phone:
Email:
Office:
Professor Tariq Modood
0117 331 0850
[email protected]
1.08, 3 Priory Road, Bristol BS8
1TX
H/6
Level:
Credit points: 20
Prerequisites: None
N/A
Curriculum
area:
Mondays 4-5pm and Wednesdays 12-1pm
Unit owner
office hours:
Scheduled office hours do not run during reading weeks, though you can still contact tutors
for advice by email and to arrange individual appointments
Timetabled classes:
Lecture: Mondays 10-11am in G.02, 34 Tyndalls Park Road
You are also expected to attend ONE seminar each week. Your online personal timetable will inform you to
which group you have been allocated. Seminar groups are fixed: you are not allowed to change seminar groups
without permission from the office.
Weeks 18 and 24 are Reading Weeks; there is NO regular teaching in these weeks.
In addition to timetabled sessions there is a requirement for private study, reading, revision and assessments.
Reading the essential readings in advance of each seminar is the minimum expectation. The University
Guidelines state that one credit point is broadly equivalent to 10 hours of total student input.
Learning outcomes:
On successful completion of the unit, students will be able to:
 Demonstrate a critical understanding of the arguments for and against varied forms of political
secularisms and why political secularism is becoming contested in a number of countries
 Critically engage with and evaluate what secularism means in specific political terms in a number of
policy areas in different countries
 Make detailed and appropriate use of these insights in developing an informed perspective on
multiculturalism that contributes meaningfully to contemporary debates.
Requirements for passing the unit:
 Satisfactory attendance at seminars
 Completion of all formative work to an acceptable standard
 Attainment of a composite mark of all summative work to a passing standard (40 or above)
Details of coursework and deadlines
Assessment:
Formative presentation
Word count:
Weighting: Deadline:
N/A
0%
In class
Summative Essay
3,000 words
100%
9.30am on 16th
January 2017




Day:
Monday
Week:
Summer
Assessment
Period
Summative essay questions will be made available on the individual Blackboard unit sites under
‘assignments’.
Instructions for the submission of coursework can be found in Appendix A
Assessment in the school is subject to strict penalties regarding late submission, plagiarism and
maximum word count. A summary of key regulations is in Appendix B.
Marking criteria can be found in Appendix C.
Make sure you check your Bristol email account regularly throughout the course as important information
will be communicated to you. Any emails sent to your Bristol address are assumed to have been read. If
you wish for emails to be forwarded to an alternative address then please go to
https://wwws.cse.bris.ac.uk/cgi-bin/redirect-mailname-external
Unit description
What is and ought to be the relationship between religion and politics? In the late twentieth century most
political theorists and most West European and North American publics thought these were uncontentious
subjects. Yet these topics have emerged as important across the social sciences with some challenging
‘secularism’ as discriminatory and unjust to religious citizens. In Western Europe, Muslim political
assertiveness, following a logic of minority rights seem to have unsettled status quo institutional
arrangements and provoked counter-assertions on the part of those who want to ‘privatise’ religion, or
alternatively to ‘nationalise’ it or ‘Europeanise’ it. This course will identify the various Church-State
compromises or antagonisms to be found in the West and assess the claims that today we are witnessing
a ‘crisis of secularism’ and are transitioning into a ‘post-secularism’.
Presentations: Each student must make at least one seminar presentation based on a number of
recommended readings and addressing a highlighted question. The presentation should be about ten
minutes long and should include a one page handout for fellow students and the tutor.
Summative assessment: Extended essay due at the completion of the unit, chosen from a list of titles
reflecting the learning outcomes and content of the unit.
See Appendix for instructions on submission. Penalties will be applied for exceeding the word length and
late submission (see Appendix).
Core reading
No text exists that can serve as a course book for this unit but the following are books that you are likely
to use most often and it would be useful for you to buy at least one of these key texts, especially those
marked by an asterisk (you might also be able to arrange exchanges and loans with fellow students).
*After Secularization – The Hedgehog Review – Special Issue, Vol. 8, No: 1-2, (2006) (available online).
Fox, J. (2012) An Introduction to Religion and Politics: Theory and Practice, Routledge
*Levey, Geoffrey Brahm & Tariq Modood (eds.) 2009. Secularism, Religion and Multicultural
Citizenship. Cambridge University Press.
Berger, P., G. Davie, et al. (2008). Religious America, secular Europe?: a theme and variation. Aldershot,
Ashgate.
Dinham, A. et al (eds) (2009) Faith in the Public Realm, Bristol: Policy Press.
Habermas, J. (2006). "Religion in the public sphere." European Journal of Philosophy 14(1): 1-25.
Laborde, C. Critical Republicanism, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Scott, J. The Politics of the Veil: Princeton: Princeton University Press
Bhargava, Rajeev (ed.) Secularism and Its Critics. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Berger, Peter L. (ed.) The Desecularization of the World: Resurgent Religion and World
Politics. Washington DC: Ethics and Public Policy Center.
Bader, Veit. 2007. Secularism or Democracy? – Associational Governance of Religious Diversity.
Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Calhoun, C., Juergensmeyer, M. And vanantwerpen, J. (eds.) Rethinking Secularism, OUP.
Casanova, José. 1994. Public Religions in the Modern World. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Joppke, C (2015) The Secular State Under Siege: Religion and Politics in Europe and America,
Cambridge: Polity, pbk
Library Sources and Reading Material
A significant number of the items on the recommended reading list have been placed in e-Reserves on
Blackboard or the Short Loan Collection in the Library and in a number of cases more than one item of the
text is available, either because it has been reproduced or because more than one copy has been
purchased. I hope this will help everyone to have an easy and regular access to main sources you
require for your research and study. Amongst items recommended, however, are some which are not
available in the Library. These have been included in case (for example, when writing the essay) you
have access to another library or a private source during the course of the year. Whilst you are not
required to purchase any texts, it is recommended that you buy at least one of those key texts mentioned
above. Please consult me should you run into any difficulties.
Use of the Internet
Explore the World Wide Web. You will need a log-on ID and password. The Computer Centre will help
you register if you do not already have one. You can carry out a search command to find material that
relates to a particular concept or a keyword or a topic. For instance, try searching secularism or postsecular in Europe. The Internet will produce a lot of material not all of which may relate directly to your
academic interest. Try various sites and bookmark them on the computer if you find them useful (book
marking enables you to return to the same site without having to recall the site address). You should use
different search engines for topics of your specific interest. The following sites are all worth a look but the
best one is the first named:
The Immanent Frame: Secularism,Religion, and the Public Sphere: http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/
States of Devotion: http://hemisphericinstitute.org/devotion/
Religion and International Law Consortium: http://beta.religlaw.org/
Religion Dispatches: http://www.religiondispatches.org/
Killing the Buddha: http://killingthebuddha.com/
EUROZINE theme on Post-Secular Europe
(http://www.eurozine.com/comp/focalpoints/postseceurope.html)
Mike Huckabee’s stance on Faith and Politics
(http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=9)
London School of Economics Forum for Secularism – conference
(http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/forumForEuropeanPhilosophy/events/forumAnnualLectureSeries
&Conference/secularismConference.htm
Reflection Group – The Spiritual and Cultural Dimension of Europe (founded by Romano Prodi)
(http://www.iwm.at/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=79&Itemid=286)
Seminar participants are asked to read the blog
Many newspapers and other media keep news stories and feature articles grouped under subjects such
as multiculturalism and race. These include the sites for the BBC world service, The Guardian, The
Financial Times, The New York Times and so on.
OpenDemocracy is a current affairs website that has threads on multiculturalism, religion and secularism
http://www.opendemocracy.net/home/index.jsp
Two email lists worth joining are:
-
For news items about religion and politics: ICLRS Headlines <[email protected]>
For news of academic conferences etc: [email protected]
Lecture schedule
Week 1: Introduction: What is and ought to be the relationship between religion and politics?
Week 2: Secularisation and Desecularisation: have we moved from one to the other?
Week 3: Church and State: three modes of Political Secularism
Week 4: New Religions, New Political Claims
Week 5: Religion, Reason and Liberalism: Habermas and Rawls
Week 6: Reading Week
Week 7: Laicite and Muslims
Week 8: Moderate Secularism, Religious Pluralism and Multiculturalism
Week 9: Equality of Religions, Neutrality and National Identity
Week 10: New Forms of Governance
Week 11: Political Secularism and Post-Secularism
Week 12: Reading Week
Week 1: Introduction: What is and ought to be the relationship between religion and politics?
There is a new challenge to secularism in Europe and America (and elsewhere) that is stimulating a
‘rethinking’ and adaptation of practice, a new accommodation, but what is it due to?
Assignment: How should we study the relationship between religion and politics? Should it be able to
help us to decide what the relationship ought to be?
Essential Reading:
Taylor, Charles “What is Secularism?”, Foreword and Geoffrey Braham Levey, “Secularism and Religion
in a Multicultural Age” from Geoffrey Brahm Levey and Tariq Modood, eds. Secularism, Religion and
Multicultural Citizenship. Cambridge University Press, 2009. (pp. xi-xxii and 1-24).
Stout, J. (2008) 2007 Presidential Address: The Folly of Secularism, Journal of the American Academy of
Religion, 76(3): 533-544.
Fish, S. (2010) ‘Religion and the Liberal State Once Again’, New York Times, 1 November.
Further Reading:
Spinner-Halev, J. (2000) Surviving Diversity: Religion and Democratic Citizenship, John Hopkins
University Press, chp 2.
Berger, P. 2005. The Desecularization of the World: A Global Overview In: Berger, Peter L. (ed.)
The Desecularization of the World – Resurgent Religion and World Politics.
Slavija Javelic, “Secularism: A Bibliographic Essay.” The Hedgehog Review (Fall
2010). Available at: http://www.iasc--‐culture.org/publications_article_2010_Fall_Jakelic.php
After Secularization – The Hedgehog Review – Special Issue, Vol. 8, No: 1-2, (2006) (available online).
Levey, Geoffrey Brahm & Tariq Modood (eds.) 2009. Secularism, Religion and Multicultural
Citizenship. Cambridge University Press.
Week 2: Secularisation and Desecularisation: have we moved from one to the other?
Founding European sociologists (Comte, Marx, Durkheim, Weber) argued that a central feature of
moderninty was the progressive decline of religion as a social force and this became a sociological
orthodoxy of the twentieth century. While this proposition was far from universally true, it did seem to hold
for Europe, for communist countries and for modernising elites in much of the rest of the world. To what
extent is this secularisation thesis true today for Europe and beyond? And what are the implications for
politics?
Assignment: What are ‘secularisation’ and ‘desecularisation’, and to what extent are they true of Western
Europe and/or the USA today?
Essential Reading:
Davie, Grace. 2005. Europe: The Exception that Proves the Rule? In: Berger, Peter L. (ed.) The
Desecularization of the World – Resurgent Religion and World Politics.
Casanova, José. 2006. Rethinking Secularization: A Global Comparative Perspective. In: After
Secularization 2006 – The Hedgehog Review – Special Issue, Vol. 8, No: 1-2: 7–22
Norris, Pippa & Ronald Inlehart 2006. Sellers or Buyers in Religious Markets? The Supply and Demand of
Religion. In: After Secularization 2006 – The Hedgehog Review – Special Issue, Vol. 8, No: 1-2: 69–92.
Further Reading:
The Economist 1999. God – An Obituary. In the Millennium Issue of The Economist. (See also
here: http://www.economist.com/obituary/displaystory.cfm?story_id=347578)
In God`s Name: A Special report on religion and public life. In: The Economist, November 3rd
2007.
Ash, Timothy Garton. 2005. Christian Europe RIP. In The Guardian - daily comment.
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1464532,00.html)
José Casanova, Public Religions in the Modern World, Chicago, London 1994 (chapter 1 ‘Secularization,
Enlightenment, and Modern Religion’).
Bruce, Steve. 2002. God is Dead: Secularization in the West. Oxford: Blackwell, 2002.
Berger, Peter. 1999. The Desecularization of the World – A Global Overview. In: The
Desecularization of the World – Resurgent Religion and World Politics, edited by Peter Berger.
Williams B. Eerdmans Publishing Co: 1–18.
Berger, Peter. 2008. Religious America, Secular Europe? In: Religious America, Secular Europe? A
Theme and Variations. Edited by Peter Berger, Grace Davie & Effie Fokas. Ashgate: 9–21.
Davie, Grace 2006. Is Europe an Exceptional Case? In: After Secularization
2006 – The Hedgehog Review – Special Issue, Vol. 8, No: 1-2: 23–34.
Norris, Pippa & Ingelhart, Ronald. 2004. Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hervieu-Leger, Daniele. 2006. In Search for Certainties: The Paradoxes of Religiosity in Societies of High
Modernity. In: After Secularization 2006 – The Hedgehog Review – Special Issue, Vol. 8, No: 1-2: 59–68.
Asad, Talal. 2003. Formations of the Secular: Christianity, Islam, Modernity. Stanford: Standford
University Press.
Dobbelaere, Karel. 1987. Some Trends in European Sociology of Religion: The Secularization
Debate. Sociological Analysis. 48 (2): 107-137.
Stark, Rodney. 1999. Secularization R.I.P. Sociology of Religion. 60 (3): 249-273.
Swatos, William H. Jr. & Kevin J. Christiano. 2000. Secularization Theory: The Course of a
Concept. In: Swatos, William H. Jr. & Olson, Daniel V.A. (eds.) The Secularization
Debate. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Smith, G. (2008) A Short History of Secularism, London and New York: I.B. Tauris and Co. Ltd.
Putnam, R.D and D.E. Campbell, American grace: How religion divides and unites us
Simon & Schuster, 2012.
Torpey, J. (2012) ‘Religion and Secularisation in the United States and Western Europe’ in Gorski, P.S.,
Kim, D.K., Torpey, J. And VanAntwerpen, J. (eds.) The Post-Secular in Question: Religion in
Contemporary Society, New York and London: New York University Press.
Week 3: Church and State: three modes of Political Secularism
To what extent is a separation of church and state a requirement of democracy? And to what extent is it a
feature of liberal democratic states, especially those of Western Europe? It is argued that political
secularism in liberal democratic states is characterised by at least three kinds of secularism: religious
freedom and non-establishment; exclusion and control of religion by the state in the public sphere and
freedom of religion in the private sphere; a moderate secularism in which there are linkages and mutual
support between organised religion and the state.
Assignment: To what extent is a separation of church and state a requirement of democracy and/or to
what extent is it a feature of Western Europe?
Essential Reading:
Stepan, A. (2000) ‘Religion, Democracy, and the “Twin Tolerations”’, Journal of Democracy, 11(4): 37-57.
Madeley, J.T.S. (2003) ‘European Liberal Democracy and the Principle of State Religious Neutrality’,
West European Politics, 26(1):1- 22.
Biggar, N. (2011) ‘What is the Good of Establishment?’, Standpoint, April
http://standpointmag.co.uk//features-april-11-what-is-the-good-of-establishment-nigel-biggar-church-ofengland-humanist-liberalism?
Further Reading:
Madeley, J.T.S. and Enyedi, A. (eds) (2003) ‘Church and State in Contemporary Europe’, Special Issue,
West European Politics, 26(1).
Fox, J. (2006) ‘World Separation of Religion and State into 21st Century’, Comparative Political Studies,
39(5): 537-569.
Madely, JTS., Unequally Yoked: The Antinomies of Church–State Separation in Europe and the USA’,
European Political Science, 8: 273-288.
Madeley, J. (2008) America's secular state and the unsecular state of Europe, in R. Fatton and R.K.
Ramazani (eds.) Religion, state, and society: Jefferson's wall of separation in comparative perspective,
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Michalski, Krzysztof. (ed.). Religion in the New Europe. Central European University
Press. (http://www.ceupress.com/books/html/TheroleofReligion.htm)
(2009) The Religious Secular Divide: The US Case, Social Research: An Internatoinal Quarterly, Volume
76(4), New York: The New School.
Sacks, Jonathan. 2005. Judaism and Politics in the Modern World. In: Berger, Peter L. (ed.) The
Desecularization of the World – Resurgent Religion and World Politics. William B.
Eerdsmans Publishing Company.
An-Na’im, Abdullah A. 2005. Political Islam in National Politics and International Relations. In:
Berger, Peter L. (ed.) The Desecularization of the World – Resurgent Religion and World Politics.
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Sandel, Michael J. 1998. Religious Liberty: Freedom of Choice or Freedom of Conscience. I
Secularism and Its Critics. R. Bhargava. New Delhi: Oxford University Press: 73-93.
Week 4: New Religions, New Political Claims
The self-image of Europeans is that their continent has been Christian since Roman times with occasional
Jewish minorities (thus overlooking the ruling presence of Islam in Iberia and the Balkans for many
centuries) but today there is a multi-faith reality and Islam is becoming the religion of the inner cities and
the banlieues. The need for migrant labour to rebuild Western Europe after the war has made Europe a
continent of multi-ethnic and multi-religious urban centres and one of the long term consequences of this
is the new multiculturalist/Muslim challenge to political secularism.
Assignment: Identify and discuss two major challenges to political secularism in any part of the world
today.
Essential Reading:
Modood, T ‘Muslims and the Politics of Difference’ (2003) in Political Quarterly 74 (s1): 100-115; also in S.
Spencer (ed.), The Politics of Migration, Oxford, Blackwell, 2003
Ruthven, Malise. 2007. The Islamic Optimist (On Tariq Ramadan). In The New York Review of
Books, 54 (13), 16 August 2007. (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20503)
Roy, Olivier. 2007. Islam in Europe – Clash of Religions or Convergence of
Religiosities? On Eurozine. (See here: http://www.eurozine.com/articles/200705-03-roy-en.html)
Foner, N. and Alba, R. (2008). ‘Immigrant religion in the US and western Europe: Bridge or barrier to
inclusion?’, International Migration Review, 42: 360-92.
Further Reading:
Yuval-Davis, N. (1992) `Fundamentalism, Multiculturalism and Women in Britain' Donald J. and A.
Rattansi (eds), `Race', Culture and Difference, London: Sage; or see, Introduction to G Saghal and N
Yuval-Davis (eds) Refusing Holy Orders: Women and Fundamentalism in Britain, Virago, 1992.
Dwyer, C. (1999b) "Veiled Meanings: British Muslim women and the negotiation of differences" Gender,
Place and Culture 6(1), 5-26
Modood, T. (ed.) (1997) Church, state and religious minorities, London: Policy Studies Institute.
Casanova, José. 2004. Religion, European Secular Identities, and European Integration. In
Eurozine. (http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2004-07-29-casanova-en.html)
Joan Wallach Scott, (2007) Politics of The Veil, Princeton University Press.
John Bowen, (2007) Why The French Don’t Like Headscarves: Islam, the State and Public Space,
Princeton University Press.
Tariq Modood, Randall Hansen, Erik Bleich, Brendan O'Leary and Joseph H. Carens The Danish Cartoon
Affair: Free Speech, Racism, Islamism, and Integration,International Migration, Volume 44, Issue 5,
December 2006, Pages: 3–62.
Levey, Geoffrey Brahm & Tariq Modood (2009). Liberal Democracy, Multicultural Citizenship and the
Danish Cartoon Affair. In: Secularism, Religion, and Multicultural Citizenship, edited by Levey, Geoffrey
Brahm & Tariq Modood. Cambridge University Press: 216- 242.
Modood, Tariq & Kastoryano, Riva. 2006. ‘Secularism and the Accommodation of Muslims in
Europe’ in (eds) Modood, T., Triandafyllidou, A. & Zapata-Barrero, R., Multiculturalism, Muslims, and
Citizenship: A European Approach, London: Routledge.
Macey, M. and Carling, A. (2011) Ethnic, Racial and Religious Inequalities: The Perils of Subjectivity, New
York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Nussbaum, M. (2012) The New Religious Intolerance, Harvard University Press
Week 5: Religion, Reason and Liberalism: Habermas and Rawls
Liberal and left wing philosophers have assumed that appeals to religion in politics, and especially within
the business of the state, are sub-rational and illegitimate and this is true of the early and most systematic
work of John Rawls and Jurgen Habermas. Yet, they both came to revise their view in their later work. We
shall examine these revisions to see why they thought they were necessary and to what extent their
arguments are sound.
Assignment: How accommodating of religion in the public square are Habermas and/or Rawls?
Essential Reading:
Rawls, J. (1997) ‘The Idea of Public Reason Revisited’, The University of Chicago Law Review’, 64(3):
765-807.
Habermas, J. (2006) ‘Religion in the public sphere’, European Journal of Philosophy, 14(1): 1-25.
Further Reading:
Audi, Robert. 1989. The Separation of Church and State and the Obligations of Citizenship.
Philosophy & Public Affairs. 18 (3): 259-296.
Weithman, Paul. J. 1991. The Separation of Church and State: Some Questions for Professor Audi.
Philosophy and Public Affairs: 52-65.
Audi, Robert. 2000. Religious Commitment and Secular Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Dworkin, R. (2006) Is Democracy Possible Here?: Principles for a New Political Debate, Princeton and
Oxford: Princeton University Press, Chapter 3.
D’Costa, G. (2009) Christianity and World Religions: Disputed Questions in the Theology of Religions, chp
5.
Habermas, Jürgen & Ratzinger, Joseph. 2007. The Dialectics of Secularization – On Reason and
Religion. Ignatius Press.
Chambers, S. (2007), ‘How religion speaks to the agnostic: Habermas on the persistent value of religion’,
Constellations, 14(2): 210-223.
Cooke, M. (2007) ‘A secular state for a postsecular society? Postmetaphysical political theory and the
place of religion’, Constellations, 14(2): 224-238.
Harrington, A. (2007) ‘Habermas and the ‘Post-Secular Society’’, European Journal of Social Theory,
10(4): 543-560.
Bernstein, R. (2010) ‘Naturalism, Secularism, and Religion: Habermas's Via Media’, Constellations, 17(1):
155-166.
Sikka, S. (2010) ‘Liberalism, Multiculturalism, and the Case for Public Religion’, Politics and Religion, 3(3):
580-609.
Waldron, J. (2010) ‘Two-Way Translations: The Ethics of Engaging with Religious Contributions in Public
Deliberation’, NYU School of Law, Public Law Research Paper.
Baumeister, A. (2011) ‘The Use of “Public Reason” by Religious and Secular Citizens: Limitations of
Habermas’ Conception of the Role of Religion in the Public Realm’,Constellations Volume, 18(2): 222-43.
Derek McGhee, ‘Critical reflections on Habermas's dialogic solutions Responding to the post-9/11
challenges facing 'post secular societies’ Ethnicities published online 9 August 2012.
Calhoun, C. (2011) ‘Secularism, Citizenship and the Public Sphere’ in Calhoun, C., Juergensmeyer, M.
And van Antwerpen, J. (eds.) Rethinking Secularism, OUP.
Leiter, B. (2013) Why Tolerate Religion? Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Week 6: Reading Week
Week 7: Laicite and Muslims
What is laicite? Is its renewal since the late 1980s due more to republicanism, nationalism or
Islamophobia? In what ways is it compatible and incompatible with liberalism? Who contests it within
France and from what positions?
Assignment: Discuss the contemporary rival interpretations of laicite in France and to what extent the
debate is about Muslims and with Muslims?
Essential Reading:
Jean Bauberot’s ‘The Two Thresholds of Laicization’, in Rajeev Bhargava (ed.), Secularism and its Critics,
pp. 94-136.
Bowen, John R. (2004). Muslims and Citizens – France’s Headscarf Controversy. In: Boston
Review. (see also http://bostonreview.net/BR29.1/bowen.html)
Kuru, A.T. (2008) ‘Secularism, State Policies and Muslims in Europe: Analysing French Exceptionalism’,
Comparative Politics, 41(1): 1-20.
Joppke, Christian (2009). The Islamic Headscarf in Western Europe. In his Veil: Mirror of Identity.
Polity Press: 1-26.
Further Reading:
Carens, J and Williams, M (1996) ‘Muslim Minorities in Liberal Democracies: the Politics of Misrecognition’
in R Baubock et al (eds) The Challenge of Diversity; reprod in J H Carens, Culture, Citizenship and
Community, OUP, 2000: chp 6.
Parekh, B. (2000) Rethinking Multiculturalism, Palgrave, pp. 249-254 and top para on p.256.
Laborde, C. (2005) ‘Secular Philosophy and Muslim Headscarves in Schools’, The Journal of Political
Philosophy, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 305-329.
Asad, Talal. 2006. French Secularism and the “Islamic Veil Affair”. In: After Secularization 2006 – The
Hedgehog Review – Special Issue, Vol. 8, No: 1-2: 23–34.
Kastoryano, R. (2006) ‘French Secularism and Islam: France’s Headscarf Affair’, in T. Modood, A.
Triandafyllidou and R. Zapata-Barrero (eds), Multiculturalism, Muslims and Citizenship, London and New
York: Routledge: 57–69.
Roy, O. (2007) Secularism Confronts Islam, New York, Columbia University Press.
Jansen, Y. (2009) ‘French Secularism in the Light of the History of the Politics of Assimilation’,
Constellations, 16(4): 593-603.
Akan, M. (2009), ‘Laïcité and multiculturalism: the Stasi Report in context’, The British Journal of
Sociology, 60(2): 237–256.
Saunders, D. (2009) ‘France on the knife-edge of religion: commemorating the centenary of the law of 9
December 1905 on the separation of church and state’ in G. Levey and T. Modood (2008) (eds)
Secularism, Religion and Multicultural Citizenship, Cambridge University Press.
Schuh, C., Burchardt, M. And Wohlrab-Sahr, M. (2012) ‘Contested Secularities: Religious Minorities and
Secular Progressivism in the Netherlands’, Journal of Religion in Europe, 5(3): 349-383.
Bauberot, J (2012) ‘The Evolution of Secularism in France: Between Two Civil Religions’ in Cady, L.E.
and Hurd, E. S. (eds) Comparative Secularisms in a Global Age.
Tiberj, V. and Michon, L. (2013) ‘Two-tier Pluralism in ‘Colour-blind’ France’, West European Politics,
36(3): 580-596.
Joppke, C (2015) The Secular State Under Siege: Religion and Politics in Europe and America,
Cambridge: Polity, chp 4.
Week 8: Moderate Secularism, Religious Pluralism and Multiculturalism
If multiculturalism is about more than toleration and non-discrimination, can the multiculturalist concepts of
equality as recognition and respect be extended to religious identities and organised religion? If it is the
case that most states in Western Europe have important and mutually supportive linkages with a church
or churches, does equality require that these should this be discontinued now that these countries are
multi-faith?
Assignment: Can multiculturalism be extended to include religious diversity?
Essential Reading:
Charles Taylor, ‘Modes of Secularism’, in Secularism and its Critics, ed. by Rajeev Bhargava, Delhi et al,
1998, pp. 31-53.
Bhargava, Rajeev 2009. Political Secularism. In: John S Dryzek, Bonnie Honig, and Anne Phillips.(eds)
The Oxford Handbook in Political Theory; also in . Geoffrey Braham Levey, “Secularism and Religion in a
Multicultural Age” from Geoffrey Brahm Levey and Tariq Modood, eds. Secularism, Religion and
Multicultural Citizenship. Cambridge University Press, 2009: 82-109.
Modood, T. (2010) ‘Moderate Secularism, Religion as Identity and Respect for Religion’,
Political Quarterly, 81(1).
Modood, T. (2012) Is There a Crisis of Secularism in Western Europe?’, Sociology of Religion, 73(2):
130–49. For a short version, see: http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2011/08/24/is-there-a-crisis-of-secularism-inwestern-europe/ For a medium-sized version, see:
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/08/08/3563265.htm
Further Reading:
Modood, T. (ed.) (1997) Church, state and religious minorities, London: Policy Studies Institute.
Bouchard, G. And Taylor, C. (2008) Building the Future: A Time for Reconciliation, Abridged Report,
Gouvernement du Quebec. [Available for free from Quebec Govt online]
MacLure, J. And Taylor, C. (2011) Secularism and Freedom of Conscience, Cambridge and London:
Harvard University Press.
Bradney, A. (2009) Law and Faith in a Sceptical Age, New York: Routledge-Cavendish.
Fetzer, J.S. and Soper, J.C. (2005) Muslims and the State in Britain, France and Germany, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Fish, S. (2010) ‘Serving Two Masters: Shariah Law and the Secular State’, New York Times, 25 October.
Klip, A. And Saumets, A. (2009) ‘Religion and Politics in Multicultural Europe’, ENDC Proceedings, 12(1):
13-42.
‘State-Religion Connexions and Multicultural Citizenship’ in J. Cohen and C. Laborde (eds) Religion,
Secularism and Constitutional Democracy, Columbia University Press, 2015.
‘Multiculturalism and Moderate Secularism’, Oxford Handbook on Secularism (forthcoming, 2016);
advance version presented at a number of conferences = LIST? and published as EUI Working PaperS,
RSCAS 2015/47, http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/36484/RSCAS_2015_47.pdf?sequence=1
‘Multiculturalise Secularism but avoid a narrow secularism and narrow multiculturalism’, contribution to
Ethnicities Review Symposium of Yolande Jansen, Secularism, Assimilation and the Crisis of
Multiculturalism: French Modernist Legacies. (2,000 words)
Week 9: Equality of Religions, Neutrality and National Identity
Does justice and equal citizenship require that the state cannot privilege any one religious heritage? What
does it mean for ‘the public square’ and or the state to be ‘neutral’ between all religions? Does the
continued existence of the Church of England’s ‘established’ status mean that all non-Anglicans or nonChristians are second class citizens? If so, how can equality be extended to non-Anglicans? Does it
require giving them something or taking something away from the Church of England? What should we do
with the various ways in which the public sphere, the national identity and the state has a Christian
character?
Assignment: If equality between religions means public or state neutrality between them, is this
desirable?
Essential Reading:
Koenig, M. (2009)‘How Nation-States Respond to Diversity’, in Bramadat, P. And Koenig, M. (eds.)
International Migration and the Governance of Religious Diversity, Ontario: School of Policy Studies,
Queens University.
Laegaard, S. (2012) ‘What’s (un)problematic about religious establishment? The alienation and symbolic
equality accounts’, Paper presented at the Centre for the Study of Equality and Multiculturalism, University
of Copenhagen, 21 September 2012, at:
http://cesem.ku.dk/papers/What_s__un_problematic_about_religious_establishment.pdf/.
Charles Taylor, “The Polysemy of the Secular,” Social Research 76.4 (Winter 2009): 1143--‐1166.
Craig Calhoun, “Rethinking Secularism.” The Hedgehog Review (Fall 2010). Available
at: http://www.iasc--‐culture.org/publications_article_2010_Fall_Calhoun.php
José Casanova, “The Secular and Secularisms,” Social Research 76.4 (Winter 2009): 1049--‐1066.
Further Reading:
Fish, S. (2011) ‘Crucifixes and Diversity: The Odd Couple’, New York Times, 28 March.
Laborde, C. (2011) ‘Political Liberalism and Religion: On Separation and Establishment’, The Journal of
Political Philosophy, online version.
Brudney, D. (2005) ‘On Noncoercive Establishment’, Political Theory, 33(6): 812-239.
Lægaard, Sune (2011), ‘Religious Neutrality, Toleration and Recognition in Moderate Secular States: The
Case of Denmark’, Les Ateliers de l’Éthique / The Ethics Forum 6(2), 85-106.
Lægaard, Sune (2012), ‘Unequal Recognition, Misrecognition and Injustice: The Case of Religious
Minorities in Denmark’, Ethnicities 12(2), 197-214.
Bonotti, M. (2012) ‘Beyond Establishment and Separation: Political Liberalism, Religion and Democracy’,
Res Publica, published online 13 June, 2012.
Laborde, C. (2013) ‘Justificatory Secularism’, in: D'Costa, G, Evans, M, Modood, T, and Rivers, J (eds.)
Religion in a Liberal State: Cross-Disciplinary Reflections, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Minkenberg, M. (2007) ‘Religious legacies and the politics of multiculturalism: a comparative analysis of
integration policies in Western democracies’, Immigration, Integration, and Security: America and Europe
in Comparative Perspective: 44-67.
(2009) The Religious Secular Divide: The US Case, Social Research: An Internatoinal Quarterly, Volume
76(4), New York: The New School.
Morris, R.M. (ed.) (2009) Church and State in 21st Century Britain: The Future of Church Establishments,
London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ivanescu, C. (2010) ‘Politicised Religion and the Religionisation of Politics’, Culture and Religion, 11(4):
309-325.
An-na’im, A.A. (2008) Islam and the Secular State: Negotiating the Future of Shari’a, Cambridge and
London: Harvard University Press.
Hashemi, N. (2009) Islam, Secularism and Liberal Democracy: Toward a Democratic Theory for Muslim
Societies, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Modood, T. (2010) ‘Civic Recognition and Respect for Religion in Britain’s Moderate Secularism’, in Y.
Birt, D. Hussain & A. Siddiqui (eds) British Secularism and the State: Islam, Society and the State, Kube
Publishing, 55-76. –SEE this chapter debated by Ted Cantle and Sunder Katwala and Modood’s reply in
this book.
Religious pluralism in the United States and Britain: Its implications for Muslims and nationhood
1. Nasar Meer⇑and Tariq Modood, Social Compass advance online:
http://scp.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/11/03/0037768615601968.abstract
2.
Foner, N. and P Simon (eds), Fear, Anxiety, and National Identity: Immigration and Belonging in North
America and Western Europe, free to download e-book, recently published by Russell Sage:
https://www.russellsage.org/publications/fear-anxiety-and-national-identity
Week 10: New Forms of Governance
As liberal democratic states seek to share, for multiculturalist or neo-liberal reasons, the governance of
sectors of social life with civil society actors, what should the role of religious organisations be? Should
they be privileged or excluded or treated in the same way as other civil society organisations? Does such
governance constitute just another form of state control of religion and instrumentalises religions, and
creates new institutional hierarchies between religions?
Assignment: Are the new, emergent forms of faith governance consistent with empowering civil society
and enhancing democratic participation of marginalised groups?
Essential Reading:
Furbey, R. (2009) ‘Controversies of ‘Public Faith’ in ’Dinham, A., Furbey, R. And Lowndes, V. (eds.)
(2009) Faith in the Public Realm: Controversies, Policies and Practices, Bristol: The Policy Press.
Bader, V. (2009) ‘The Governance of Religious Diversity’ in Bramadat, P. And Koenig, M. (eds.)
International Migration and the Governance of Religious Diversity, Ontario: School of Policy Studies,
Queens University.
Bretherton, L. (2011) ‘A Postsecular Politics? Inter-faith Relations as a Civic Practice’, Journal of the
American Academy of Religion, 79(2): 346-377.
Further Reading:
J. Cesari and S. McLoughlin (eds) (2005) European Muslims and the Secular State, Palgrave.
V Bader and M Mausen, Guest Editors, Special Issue on Governing Islam in Western Europe, Journal of
Migration and Ethnic Studies, 2007, issue 6, pages 871-1020:
Banchoff, T. (ed.) (2007) Democracy and the New Religious Pluralism, OUP.
Dinham, A., Furbey, R. And Lowndes, V. (eds.) (2009) Faith in the Public Realm: Controversies, Policies
and Practices, Bristol: The Policy Press.
Allen, C. (2011) ‘We Don’t Do God’, Culture and Religion, 12(3): 259-275.
Bramadat, P. And Koenig, M. (eds.)(2009) International Migration and the Governance of Religious
Diversity, Ontario: School of Policy Studies, Queens University.
Amir-Moazami, S. (2011), ‘Pitfalls of consensus-orientated dialogue’, The German Islam Conference
(Deutsche Islam Konferenz), Approaching Religion, Vol. 1, May: 2-15.
John Bowen, “Secularism: Conceptual Genealogy or Political Dilemma?” Comparative
Studies in Society and History 52 (July 2010): 680--‐694.
Ferrari, S. (2012) ‘Law and Religion in a Secular World: A European Perspective’, Ecclesiastical Law
Journal, 14(3): 355-370.
O’Toole, T., DeHanas, D.N., Modood, T, Meer, N. and Jones, S. (2013) Taking Part: Muslim Participation
in Contemporary Governance, Centre for the Study of Ethnicity and Citizenship, University of Bristol:
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/ethnicity/projects/muslimparticipation/documents/mpcgreport.pdf
O’Toole, T., DeHanas, D.N. and Modood, T. (2012) ‘Balancing Tolerance, Security and Muslim
Engagement in the United Kingdom: The Impact of the ‘Prevent’ Agenda’, Critical Studies on Terrorism,
Special Section: Assessing the Effectiveness of Counter-radicalisation Policies in North-Western Europe:
1-17.
Martikainen, T. (2013) “Muslim Immigrants, Public Religion and Developments towards a Post-Secular
Finnish Welfare State”. Studies in Contemporary Islam,
http://www.islamforskning.dk/Tidsskrift_for_Islamforskning.htm
Joppke, C. and Torpey, J. (2013) Legal Integration of Islam, A Transatlantic Comparasion, Harvard
University Press.
Peucker M and Akbarzadeh S (2014) Muslim active citizenship in the West, London and New York:
Routledge, 978-0-415-71798-4, hbk.
Week 11: Political Secularism and Post-Secularism
We review the range of institutional and legal arrangements that exist in Western countries, which are
often at odds with the uncritical assumptions about the nature of political secularism; and consider
portrayls of Western secularity which see it as a Christian hegemony, trying to make all religions, and all
social and political life conform to Christian ideas of religion, salvation, freedom and equality. Is there an
epochal change taking place, such that the age of secularism is passing away? Or is it that in the West,
political secularism is renewing itself under the new conditions of diversity and equality?
Assignment: What does the ‘post’ and ‘secularism’ mean in ‘post-secularism’?
Essential Reading:
Stepan, A. (2011) ‘The Multiple Secularisms of Modern Democratic and Non-Democratic Regimes’ in
Calhoun, C., Juergensmeyer, M. And vanantwerpen, J. (eds.) Rethinking Secularism, OUP.
Casanova, J. (2011) ‘The Secular, Secularisations and Secularisms’ in Calhoun, C., Juergensmeyer, M.
And vanantwerpen, J. (eds.) Rethinking Secularism, OUP.
Mahmood, S. (2006) Secularism, Hermeneutics, and Empire: The Politics of Islamic Reformation, Public
Culture, 18(2).
Further Reading:
Leigh, I and Adhar, R (2012) ost‐Secularism and the European Court of Human Rights: Or How God
Never Really Went Away’, The Modern Law Review, Vol. 75, Issue 6, pp. 1064-1098.
After Secularization – The Hedgehog Review – Special Issue, Vol. 8, No: 1-2, (2006) (available online).
G. Levey and T. Modood (2008) (eds) Secularism, Religion and Multicultural Citizenship, Cambridge
University Press.
Bhargava, Rajeev (ed.) Secularism and Its Critics. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Berger, Peter L. (ed.) The Desecularization of the World: Resurgent Religion and World
Politics. Washington DC: Ethics and Public Policy Center.
Calhoun, C., Juergensmeyer, M. And vanantwerpen, J. (eds.) (2011) Rethinking Secularism, OUP.
Trigg, R. (2007) Religion in Public Life: Must Faith be Privatized?, Oxford; New York: Oxford University
Press.
Wilde, L. (2010) ‘The Antinomies of Aggressive Atheism’, Contemporary Political Theory, 9(3): 266-283.
Hurd, E.S. (2008) The Politics of Secularism in International Relations, Princeton and Oxford: Princeton
University Press.
Wohlrab-Sahr, M.and M. Burchardt (2012) ‘Multiple Secularities: Toward A Cultural Sociology of Secular
Modernities’, Comparative Sociology, 11(2): 875-909.
D'Costa, G, Evans, M, Modood, T, and Rivers, J (eds.) (2013) Religion in a Liberal State: CrossDisciplinary Reflections, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Week 12: Reading Week
Appendix A
Instructions on how to submit essays electronically
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Log in to Blackboard and select the Blackboard course for the unit you are submitting work for. If you cannot see
it, please e-mail [email protected] with your username and ask to be added.
Click on the "Submit Work Here" option at the top on the left hand menu and then find the correct assessment
from the list.
Select ‘view/complete’ for the appropriate piece of work. It is your responsibility to ensure that you have selected
both the correct unit and the correct piece of work.
The screen will display ‘single file upload’ and your name. Enter your name (for FORMATIVE ASSESSMENTS
ONLY) or candidate number (for SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENTS ONLY) as a submission title, and then select
the file that you wish to upload by clicking the ‘browse’ button. Click on the ‘upload’ button at the bottom.
You will then be shown the essay to be submitted. Check that you have selected the correct essay and click the
‘Submit’ button. This step must be completed or the submission is not complete.
You will be informed of a successful submission. A digital receipt is displayed on screen and a copy sent to your
email address for your records.
Important notes
 You are only allowed to submit one file to Blackboard (single file upload), so ensure that all parts of your work
– references, bibliography etc. – are included in one single document and that you upload the correct version.
You will not be able to change the file once you have uploaded.
 Blackboard will accept a variety of file formats, but the School can only accept work submitted in .rtf (Rich Text
Format) or .doc/.docx (Word Document) format. If you use another word processing package, please ensure
you save in a compatible format.
 By submitting your essay, you are confirming that you have read the regulations on plagiarism and confirm
that the submission is not plagiarised. You also confirm that the word count stated on the essay is an accurate
statement of essay length.
 If Blackboard is not working email your assessment to [email protected] with the unit code and title in
the subject line.
How to confirm that your essay has been submitted
 You will have received a digital receipt by email and If you click on the assessment again (steps 1-4), you will
see the title and submission date of the essay you have submitted. If you click on submit, you will not be able
to submit again. This table also displays the date of submission. If you click on the title of the essay, it will
open in a new window and you can also see what time the essay was submitted.
Appendix B
Summary of Relevant School Regulations
(Further information is in the year handbook)
Attendance at classes
SPAIS takes attendance and participation in classes very seriously. Seminars form an essential part
of your learning and you need to make sure you arrive on time, have done the required reading and
participate fully. Attendance at all seminars is monitored, with absence only condoned in cases of
illness or for other exceptional reasons.
If you are unable to attend a seminar you must inform your seminar tutor, as well as email [email protected]. You should also provide evidence to explain your absence, such as a self-
certification and/or medical note, counselling letter or other official document. If you are unable to
provide evidence then please still email [email protected] to explain why you are unable to
attend. If you are ill or are experiencing some other kind of difficulty which is preventing you from
attending seminars for a prolonged period, please inform your personal tutor, the Undergraduate Office
or the Student Administration Manager.
Requirements for credit points
In order to be awarded credit points for the unit, you must achieve:
 Satisfactory attendance in classes, or satisfactory completion of catch up work in lieu of poor
attendance
 Satisfactory formative assessment
 An overall mark of 40 or above in the summative assessment/s. In some circumstances, a mark
of 35 or above can be awarded credit points.
Presentation of written work
Coursework must be word-processed. As a guide, use a clear, easy-to-read font such as Arial or Times
New Roman, in at least 11pt. You may double–space or single–space your essays as you prefer. Your
tutor will let you know if they have a preference.
All pages should be numbered.
Ensure that the essay title appears on the first page.
All pages should include headers containing the following information:
Formative work
Name: e.g. Joe Bloggs
Unit e.g. SOCI10004
Seminar Tutor e.g. Dr J.
Haynes
Word Count .e.g. 1500 words
Summative work
**Candidate Number**: e.g. 12345
Unit: e.g. SOCI10004
Seminar Tutor: e.g. Dr J. Haynes
Word Count: e.g. 3000 words
Candidate numbers are required on summative work in order to ensure that marking is anonymous.
Note that your candidate number is not the same as your student number.
Assessment Length
Each piece of coursework must not exceed the stipulated maximum length for the assignment (the ‘word
count’) listed in the unit guide. Summative work that exceeds the maximum length will be subject to
penalties. The word count is absolute (there is no 10% leeway, as commonly rumoured). Five marks
will be deducted for every 100 words or part thereof over the word limit. Thus, an essay that is 1 word
over the word limit will be penalised 5 marks; an essay that is 101 words over the word limit will be
penalised 10 marks, and so on.
The word count includes all text, numbers, footnotes/endnotes, Harvard referencing in the body of the
text and direct quotes. It excludes, the title, candidate number, bibliography, and appendices.
However, appendices should only be used for reproducing documents, not additional text written by
you.
Referencing and Plagiarism
Where sources are used they must be cited using the Harvard referencing system. Inadequate
referencing is likely to result in penalties being imposed. See the Study Skills Guide for advice on
referencing and how poor referencing/plagiarism are processed. Unless otherwise stated, essays must
contain a bibliography.
Extensions
Extensions to coursework deadlines will only be granted in exceptional circumstances. If you want to
request an extension, complete an extension request form (available at Blackboard/SPAIS_UG
Administration/forms to download and School policies) and submit the form with your evidence (e.g.
self-certification, medical certificate, death certificate, or hospital letter) to Catherine Foster in the
Undergraduate Office.
Extension requests cannot be submitted by email, and will not be considered if there is no supporting
evidence. If you are waiting for evidence then you can submit the form and state that it has been
requested.
All extension requests should be submitted at least 72 hours prior to the assessment deadline. If the
circumstance occurs after this point, then please either telephone or see the Student Administration
Manager in person. In their absence you can contact Catherine Foster in the UG Office, again in
person or by telephone.
Extensions can only be granted by the Student Administration Manager. They cannot be granted by
unit convenors or seminar tutors.
You will receive an email to confirm whether your extension request has been granted.
Submitting Essays
Formative essays
Summative essays
Unless otherwise stated, all formative essay
submissions must be submitted electronically
via Blackboard
All summative essay submissions must be
submitted electronically via Blackboard.
Electronic copies enable an efficient system of receipting, providing the student and the School with a
record of exactly when an essay was submitted. It also enables the School to systematically check the
length of submitted essays and to safeguard against plagiarism.
Late Submissions
Penalties are imposed for work submitted late without an approved extension. Any kind of
computer/electronic failure is not accepted as a valid reason for an extension, so make sure you back
up your work on another computer, memory stick or in the cloud (e.g. Google Drive or Dropbox). Also
ensure that the clock on your computer is correct.
The following schema of marks deduction for late/non-submission is applied to both formative work
and summative work:
Up to 24 hours late, or part thereof
For each additional 24 hours late, or
part thereof
Assessment submitted over one week
late



Penalty of 10 marks
A further 5 marks deduction for each 24 hours,
or part thereof
Treated as a non-submission: fail and mark of
zero recorded. This will be noted on your
transcript.
The 24 hour period runs from the deadline for submission, and includes Saturdays, Sundays,
bank holidays and university closure days.
If an essay submitted less than one week late fails solely due to the imposition of a late
penalty, then the mark will be capped at 40.
If a fail due to non-submission is recorded, you will have the opportunity to submit the essay as
a second attempt for a capped mark of 40 in order to receive credit points for the unit.
Marks and Feedback
In addition to an overall mark, students will receive written feedback on their assessed work.
The process of marking and providing detailed feedback is a labour-intensive one, with most 2-3000
word essays taking at least half an hour to assess and comment upon. Summative work also needs to
be checked for plagiarism and length and moderated by a second member of staff to ensure marking is
fair and consistent. For these reasons, the University regulations are that feedback will be returned to
students within three weeks of the submission deadline.
If work is submitted late, then it may not be possible to return feedback within the three week period.
Fails and Resits
If you fail the unit overall, you will normally be required to resubmit or resit. In units where there are two
pieces of summative assessment, you will normally only have to re-sit/resubmit the highest-weighted
piece of assessment.
Exam resits only take place once a year, in late August/early September. If you have to re-sit an exam
then you will need to be available during this period. If you are not available to take a resit examination,
then you will be required to take a supplementary year in order to retake the unit.
Appendix C
Level 6 Marking and Assessment Criteria (Third / Final Year)
1st (70+)
o
o
o
o
o
2:1 (60–69)
o
o
o
o
o
2:2 (50–59)
o
o
o
o
o
3rd (40–49)
o
o
o
o
o
Excellent comprehension of the implications of the question and critical
understanding of the theoretical & methodological issues
A critical, analytical and sophisticated argument that is logically structured and
well-supported
Evidence of independent thought and ability to ‘see beyond the question’
Evidence of reading widely beyond the prescribed reading list and creative use of
evidence to enhance the overall argument
Extremely well presented: minimal grammatical or spelling errors; written in a
fluent and engaging style; exemplary referencing and bibliographic formatting
Very good comprehension of the implications of the question and fairly extensive
and accurate knowledge and understanding
Very good awareness of underlying theoretical and methodological issues,
though not always displaying an understanding of how they link to the question
A generally critical, analytical argument, which shows attempts at independent
thinking and is sensibly structured and generally well-supported
Clear and generally critical knowledge of relevant literature; use of works beyond
the prescribed reading list; demonstrating the ability to be selective in the range
of material used, and the capacity to synthesise rather than describe
Very well presented: no significant grammatical or spelling errors; written clearly
and concisely; fairly consistent referencing and bibliographic formatting
Generally clear and accurate knowledge, though there may be some errors
and/or gaps and some awareness of underlying theoretical/methodological
issues with little understanding of how they relate to the question
Some attempt at analysis but a tendency to be descriptive rather than critical;
Tendency to assert/state opinion rather than argue on the basis of reason and
evidence; structure may not be entirely clear or logical
Good attempt to go beyond or criticise the ‘essential reading’ for the unit; but
displaying limited capacity to discern between relevant and non-relevant material
Adequately presented: writing style conveys meaning but is sometimes awkward;
some significant grammatical and spelling errors; inconsistent referencing but
generally accurate bibliography.
Limited knowledge and understanding with significant errors and omissions and
generally ignorant or confused awareness of key theoretical/ methodological
issues
Largely misses the point of the question, asserts rather than argues a case;
underdeveloped or chaotic structure; evidence mentioned but used
inappropriately or incorrectly
Very little attempt at analysis or synthesis, tending towards excessive description
Limited, uncritical and generally confused account of a narrow range of sources
Poorly presented: not always easy to follow; frequent grammatical and spelling
errors; limited attempt at providing references (e.g. only referencing direct
quotations) and containing bibliographic omissions.
Marginal
o
Fail
o
(35–39)
o
o
o
Outright
Fail
(0–34)
o
o
o
o
o
Unsatisfactory level of knowledge and understanding of subject; limited or no
understanding of theoretical/methodological issues
Very little comprehension of the implications of the question and lacking a
coherent structure
Lacking any attempt at analysis and critical engagement with issues, based on
description or opinion
Little use of sources and what is used reflects a very narrow range or are
irrelevant and/or misunderstood
Unsatisfactory presentation: difficult to follow; very limited attempt at providing
references (e.g. only referencing direct quotations) and containing bibliographic
omissions
Very limited, and seriously flawed, knowledge and understanding
No comprehension of the implications of the question and no attempt to provide
a structure
No attempt at analysis
Limited, uncritical and generally confused account of a very narrow range of
sources
Very poorly presented: lacking any coherence, significant problems with spelling
and grammar, missing or no references and containing bibliographic omissions