Atef Said

This article examines how and why the strategy of occupying Tahrir Square went from being the central mode of action and defining image of the Egyptian Revolution of 2011 to an ineffective strategy read by many as symbolic of the revolution’s ultimate failure during the transitional period of 2011–2012. This question speaks to a lacuna in the literature on repertoires, specifically a lack of attention to their temporality and the lessons to be learned from their failure. I propose a framework that examines the trajectory of repertoires and traces their 1) meaning; 2) internal composition; 3) relationality vis-à-vis the regime in relation to which the repertoire is practiced; and 4) temporal momentum. Using this framework, I chart the rise and fall of the Tahrir repertoire in a very short period: from February 12, 2011, to December 5, 2012. The article draws on ethnographic, qualitative, and historical data collected over three research trips taken between February 4, 2011, and January 7, 2015

In this article I interrogate three misapprehensions around
the concept of counter-revolution: (1) defining the old regime,
(2) defining counter-revolution's temporal boundary,
and (3) different meanings of the countering actions. Using
Egypt as a case study, I develop and apply a disaggregated
and temporally sensitive framework to analyze the counter-
revolution. I argue that counter-revolution was instigated
during the revolutionary crisis (25 January–11 February
2011), accrued momentum during the extended transitional
period (12 February 2011–30 June 2013) and achieved a decisive
victory after the military coup of 3 July 2013. I interrogate
the varieties of counter-revolutionary actions in these
periods: repression and propaganda, adopting a project of
containment during the transitional period, then launching
unlimited repression campaigns against revolutionaries, and
expanding military rule. This framework helps make sense of
how different forces change their positions over time, and of
the contradictions and the dynamism of counter-revolutionary
actions.

Key founders of sociology such as Karl Marx and Max Weber, and key political/social theorists such as Alexis de Tocqueville, never considered social theory as separate from history and historical analysis. The prominent American sociologist Charles Wright Mills famously emphasized that all good sociology is historical sociology. Yet much of the social sciences today have become presentist, as they study the social and political world separate from history. Rather than interrogate why presentism has become the dominant pattern in the social sciences, we take advantage of the fact that comparative and historical sociology is an established subfield in American sociology today. This class offers an introduction survey of  this subfield, and aims to introduce students to different tropes in using historical sociology in their research.

COURSE DESCRIPTION: "Revolutions are the locomotives of history," wrote Karl Marx in 1850. What exactly does this statement mean? Beyond repeating the cliché that revolutions are the driving forces of social and political change, our goal in this class is to think through, and hopefully draw some lessons from, revolutions in their historical time as well as across history. Of course, each revolution has its own unique historical circumstances and integral causal components, yet revolutions do inform one another. And whereas people have always revolted against oppressive circumstances, both the meaning and the practice of revolution have changed over time. Among the main questions we address in this class are 1) How are revolutions shaped by their historical time?; 2) What are some of the key differences between early modern revolutions and revolutions in late modern/ late-capitalist eras?; 3) Why do anti-slavery and anti-colonialist revolutions have less privileged status in the canonical research on revolutions?; and 4) What are some of the lessons we can learn today, to guide our thinking about revolutions and their future?2 The class is interdisciplinary in nature, with a heavy focus on sociological, historical and political theoretical readings, as well as readings with a decolonial and a black radical theoretical lens. The class also includes the screening and discussion of movies about revolutions.

COURSE OBJECTIVES: In this class, 1. We will learn about key theories in analyzing revolutions. 2. We will learn about some of the key revolutions in world history. 3. We will learn about how some of these revolutions were informed by or shaped one other. 4. We will learn how the idea and the practice of revolution changed from time to time. 5. We will problematize and discuss some of the established typologies of revolutions, such as social vs. political revolutions, and the theoretical hierarchy and privileges of certain revolutions over others. 6. Given these discussions, we will end the class with thinking together about the future of revolutions. READINGS: All required readings will be made available on Blackboard, so that you do not have to buy any books, unless you want to. Here are some recommended books to buy: Arendt, Hannah. On Revolution. New York: Penguin Classics, 2006. 2 1 In the first week of classes, I will be sending a Zoom link to use for drop-in hours for the entire semester. When we schedule an appointment not during drop-in hours, I will send you a link as well. 2 Note that the list of revolutions discussed in this class is not comprehensive, but rather limited to a selection of important revolutions.

This seminar is an introduction to political sociology, a subfield within sociology that examines the state and other institutions of power, as well as broader political dynamics. The class is organized around the following themes: 1) the state, 2) nations and nationalism, 3) citizenship, 4) civil society and the civil sphere, 5) democracy and democratization, 6) authoritarianism, dictatorship, and totalitarianism, 7) social movements and political parties, 8) revolutions, 9) spatialities of power and resistance, and 10) who really rules? As we discuss each theme, we will engage with key theorists working in that area. As an introduction, in the first two weeks, will focus on the meaning of “the political” in the works of Max Weber, Michel Foucault, Carl Schmitt, and Antonio Gramsci. We will end the class with a discussion of emancipatory social science as outlined in Envisioning Real Utopias, by Erik Olin Wright

Classical theories by the traditional " holy trinity " of sociology—Emile Durkheim, Karl Marx, and Max Weber—have long been considered part of the disciplinary canon. Yet in recent decades, that canon has been called into question and the consensus regarding what even constitutes " classical " theory has dissolved. What does it mean, then, to study classical sociological theory today? Should old texts make way for new, or is there room in the canon for a more diverse set of perspectives? Rather than simply presenting the sociological canon as given, this class explores these questions and invites students to consider which thinkers and theorists and theories are essential to the discipline. A class on theory is important for (at least) two reasons. First, you cannot be a sociologist without understanding sociological theory. Sociologists are not merely data collectors or, to put it another way, collecting and analyzing data always involves theory—whether explicitly or implicitly. A solid basis in sociological theory will help you to be both aware of, and informed about, the kind of theorizing that influences your work. Second, engaging with debates about what makes a theory " sociological " and which theories should be considered canonical is an important way not only to learn about the history of discipline, but also to think about its future. Course Objectives The course has three objectives: 1) To introduce students to some of the key texts and theorists considered cornerstones in the making of sociology as a discipline. We will examine how some of the so-called founders conceived of society and " the social " as objects of analysis, and what methods they proposed for its study. 2) To encourage students to think critically about the notion of classical theory and canon formation by situating texts in their appropriate historical context and comparing this with more contemporary applications. 3) To review some of the key theoretical issues and debates in the discipline, such as social structure vs. agency, explanation vs. interpretation, and the relation between different levels of theorizing.

This paper interrogates moments in which American corporate media, the U.S. government, and U.S. academic discourses have relied upon what we call a liberal-Orientalist “cry for human rights” to represent the Egyptian revolution. We focus on U.S. public discussions regarding: 1) the process of transition following the Egyptian revolution, and 2) violence—specifically, gendered sexual violence and torture in Egypt. We are particularly concerned with how this framing of human rights both relies upon and reinforces global neoliberalism and its attendant forms of violence. We argue that analyses framed as a “cry for human rights” fail to account for the complex and dynamic historical and political contexts in which violence and transition take place, and the multiple, interconnected structures of power that impact revolutionary change. Far from questioning the value of protecting women’s rights or human rights, our goals are to examine the limitations inherent to liberal-Orientalist epistemological frameworks and highlight the connections between interpersonal violence, Egyptian state violence, and U.S.-led imperial practices in Egypt.

This article explores the role of space in social movements, through an examination of the case of Tahrir Square in the Egyptian revolution of 2011. The author argues that the pre-existing, historically specific understanding of Tahrir Square as a politicized space of protest drew people there in January 2011 and shaped their participation in the revolution. Specifically, the author suggests that earlier mobilizations that took place in Tahrir Square contributed to the events of the revolution in three ways: (1) provided protesters with an idea about Tahrir as a target of protests, (2) provided protesters with the idea of occupation of Tahrir, and (3) provided protesters with an inspiration in the revolution. The article contributes to the literature in sociology of space and social movements by proposing that the history of space in social movements and previous mobilization matters, but also these may shape the new movement and the role of space in protest. This article is part of the author’s research about the Egyptian revolution of 2011. It is based on two phases of historical and ethnographic research in Egypt conducted in 2011 and 2012.

In this short piece, I argue that political sociologists have much more to contribute to the discission on algorithms and power dynamics in society. I am inspired here by sociologists who brought power issues up front when analyzing algorithms (Aneesh 2009; Burrel and Fourcade 2021; Zajko 2022). For example, sociologist Aneesh Aneesh has proposed that global work processes are becoming algocratic (2009). My goal is to contribute to a much-needed discussion and, I argue that political sociologists should not reduce the question of power and algorithms to issues of regulation and governance.  I do so through presenting five theses as a provocation. Before proceeding, I would like to start with two clarifying notes. First, by suggesting that we should not limit the question of algorithms and power to discussions of governance and regulation, I do not mean at all that these issues are trivial. On the contrary, we have been ruled by algorithms in many social processes, for example, governments have used predictive analytics to identify taxpayers that are most likely to be noncompliant (Bal 2019). Second, the term regulation is multi-laden in could refer to many things. Sometimes algorithmic governance is used interchangeably with regulations by algorithmic. I am avoiding this confusion, as I am not focus on governance and regulation specifically here. Now to the five theses.

From the Cambridge Analytica scandal (where an estimated 87 million Facebook users’ information was leaked to lobbying firms) to Trump’s ban from social media, through engaging in online protests and being subjected to constant surveillance, our political and digital lives have become intimately intertwined. In this context, where humans have become mere data bodies, where did our political agency go? And how do we undertake political sociology in such a highly digitized society? Political sociology is conventionally understood as the field of study of who governs, who is governed, and methods of governing, among other things. But what does a political sociology of the digital, or digital politics, look like? 
Our aim in this class is to explore answers to these questions. This class is an advanced introduction to the new emerging field of digital politics. It is interdisciplinary in nature, with much focus on readings from sociology, communication, political sciences and digital humanities. Most of the readings are scholarly, complemented by some non-academic readings and documentaries.
In addition to an introduction and a conclusion, the class is divided into 7 sections: 1) The Governing, 2) The Governed, 3) Digital Activism, 4) Digital Repression and Surveillance, 5) Gender, Race and Sexualities in Digital Spaces, 6) Digital Politics is Global, and 7) Case Studies.

This class is an advanced introduction to the broad topic of coloniality and decoloniality. It is an interdisciplinary class in nature, with a heavy focus on historical, theoretical, sociological and anthropological readings. The class starts with an introduction of some key concepts on coloniality and decoloniality, such as the colonial and the post-colonial and the de-colonial, as well as the meaning and the nature of the colonial structure and the centrality of race in the colonial project. The class is divided into four parts. The first part is examining some examples from different historical waves of colonialisms such as the colonialism of the "new" world, and the scramble for Africa, with a brief examination of some selected cases. The second part is the study of some of the key approaches to study colonialism and imperialism, such as the Marxist approaches, post-colonial theory, indigenous perspectives, the black radical tradition and sociological approaches. The third part is an examination of the key types of colonialisms such as settler-colonialism, and imperialisms/new imperialism, as well as some of the key problematics in the field as the relationship between the state and the colonial project and the gendered nature of colonialism and imperialism. The class concludes with the study of decoloniality as a theoretical approach and as a praxis.