The politics curriculum at the ANU has long bothered me. It’s
currently undergoing some changes (all for the best, as far as I can tell), so I thought I’d write briefly what I reckon
it should consist of, for fun and to see what other people think.
Let’s start with what I think is the problem. Politics courses can be split into three types: theory, science and case study. A theory course covers big texts, big authors and big ideas in the history of political ideas. An example is the course I used to tutor: ‘Fundamentals of political theory’. It ranged from Plato and Aristotle through the Aquinas and Augustine and ended with Machiavelli. There is not a strict emphasis on scientific inquiry. Normative issues are also explored and the main focus is on concepts and notions that not only help us make sense of politics but also to judge and evaluate it. Political science courses are concerned with educating students in the methods of political science—things like mathematical models and statistical inquiry—and applying these methods to the traditional problems of political science, like voting patterns and institutional analysis. The emphasis is on positive rather than normative statements. A case study course is where you apply political theory and political science ideas and methods to a contemporary issue, like nuclear politics or the politics of the middle-east.
There have thus far been three problems in the politics curriculum
at ANU as I see it. Political theory courses were too shallow and narrow and the ideas presented therein were frequently divorced from historical context.
Political science courses were non-existent, and students were permitted to do
case study courses (and nothing but case study courses) long before they actually knew anything about politics. The end result was the production of a vast
number of students who spent their undergraduate years confirming their biases,
becoming comfortable in their prejudices and not really learning anything.
My solution is to ensure that students are given a solid education
in political theory and political science before being allowed to do case study
courses. This would involve having those students pursuing a major in politics
being required to take a rather large number of compulsory courses, with some
room to manoeuvre in terms of specialising in political science or political
theory. Those students intent on doing honours in politics would have even more
stringent requirements. One other little thing that I would do is ensure that
students were first educated in the theories that underlie our current social
order, namely liberalism, and why these ideas are great, before they are
exposed to critical and reformist ideas. You must know something before you can
criticise it, else you are liable to commit the straw man fallacy.
I would have three compulsory courses for a major in politics.
Theory 1, which would cover classical authors through to J.S. Mill (full course
outline below); Theory 2, which would cover the 20th century debate
between fascism, socialism and liberalism, including Marx, and key ideas in
postmodernism and critical theory (including feminist perspectives); and
Political science 1, which would basically work through the Mueller textbook on
Public Choice with perhaps some lectures on basic calculus and the usefulness of
mathematics as an analytical tool in the social sciences.
Students wishing to undertake honours in politics would need to
complete 2 more courses. Methods 1, which would cover theory of knowledge and
empirical techniques culminating in the briefest introduction to linear regression;
and either another theory coded elective or another political science coded
elective. The theory electives would likely delve deeper into one of the areas
already covered in the compulsory theory courses, or might examine one
particular branch of theory in depth like democratic theory, republican theory
or post-colonialism. The political science electives would perhaps cover
institutional analysis in depth or rational choice, among many other options.
In the honours year students would be required to complete three
courses. Methods 2, which would go deeper into theory of knowledge and
introduce limited dependent variable models (i.e. probits), which are very
useful to political scientists, as well as qualitative empirical techniques;
either honours theory or honours political science, which would drill into a
difficult and contemporary area of either theory or science e.g. deliberative
democracy theories or models of political change; and a case study course that
all honours students were required to sit together. This case study course
would allow theory specialists to gain an insight into how science specialists
approach problems and vice versa. It could be taught by two faculty members,
one from each stream. Topics could be very big contemporary issues, like free
speech and political correctness, migration, refugee politics or the political
transition of Japan, for instance. These three courses would cover the first
semester of honours. The second semester would be left for thesis writing.
The outcome of this programme would be that majors in political
science would have a strong grounding in their specialisation with at least 2
courses (3 for theorists) as well as a notion of the parallel approach and of
methods. They would also have a basic understanding of the theory of knowledge
and so would be aware of when they were making empirical claims and the extent
of our ability to validate such claims. They would be able to distinguish
between normative and positive statements. Honours students would have a strong
background in their specialisation with up to 4 courses in it, some notion of
methods and a solid grounding in the parallel approach. All politics majors
would have a grasp of the history of political thought and political
development, and of why our institutions are the way they currently are. They
would also have some understanding of what might be wrong with our current
system and how we might go about changing it. This is a far cry from where we
are now, where honours students argue on the basis of anecdote and know all
about what’s wrong with the world today, but can’t tell me what the harm
principle is.
I see two principle areas where I will be disputed. The first is
with the number of compulsory courses. The second is with what content is
covered in the two compulsory theory courses. Let me address each criticism in
turn.
Universities are beholden to the market, and students want to
learn things that make them feel good, apparently. This means allowing them to
voice their opinions before those opinions have been tempered by the ideas of
20+ centuries of political thinking. Hence we have a proliferation of case
study courses and almost no dry, mathematical political sciences courses. I say
that’s bad pedagogy. Moreover, if faculties are paid based on bums on seats
then it is in their interest to have as many compulsory courses as possible to
ensure that quotas are met and students are forced to attend five courses from
the faculty of their major. One more anecdote: IR theory is widely regarded as
the most popular humanities course at the ANU. This is largely, I am told,
because the lecturer actually challenges the students and makes them think hard
about all the knowledge they are absorbing. It is not a class about opining on
something but rather about understanding that thing. I see no reason why this
model could not be replicated across more courses.
On the second issue of course content, my feeling is that breadth
is critical and that chronology rather than theme is important so as to impart
some knowledge of history. The theory course I did—‘ideas in politics’—covered
a lot of material but was divorced from historical context. Students thus
failed, at times, to appreciate why certain ideas had triumphed over others
historically and the extent to which some ideas, like Platonism, are the
product of their age.
I think a smattering of the classical cannon—Plato, Augustine,
Machiavelli, most of all—is important because it helps the student to
appreciate what changed in the enlightenment. Plato and his contemporaries, if
we can call them that, were interested in designing the perfect state. With
Machiavelli we get the earliest turn to being concerned with power, which is nowadays regarded as the
essence of politics. The enlightenment is about how to institutionalise and
control power. With Hobbes we see the creation of Leviathan and thereafter the
enlightenment is a project concerned with channelling the power of Leviathan
for the betterment of everyman. This body of work—liberalism—fights a grand
battle against both arch-conservatism in the form of fascism and
arch-egalitarianism in the form of communism in the 20th century,
and triumphs, at least for now. The 20th century is enormously
important in terms of the history of ideas and so it should be covered on its
own. It also provides a valuable staging ground for understanding our current
political debates.
So in these two political theory courses I would propose the
following readings and themes.
Theory 1 — some classics and the
enlightenment tradition
Week 1: Course outline and why we should study theory; Greek
political history in brief; Plato, the republic (perhaps in the context of
Sparta vs. democratic Athens in the context of perpetually warring city
states—historical context is so important).
Week 2: Plato, the republic—the origins of fascism and
totalitarian thinking; Roman political history; Cicero
Week3: Christian political history and thinking; Augustine and
Aquinas, perhaps also a smidge of Aristotle just so they see the connection
between Aquinas’ ethics and those of Aristotle (natural law => man-made law
=> the divine law).
Week4: Medieval political history, especially the horrors of
feudalism and the dark ages and the British civil war; Hobbes and Leviathan;
Magna Carta; perhaps a reading from T.H. White’s ‘The once and future king’.
Week5: If Hobbes creates Leviathan then it is Locke who begins
taming it. A whole week on Locke is easily filled—the rule of law, property,
labour and on tolerance to start
Week6: Edmund Burke and the origins of conservative thinking; the
history of the French revolution
Week7: Thoreau and Civil disobedience; Thomas Payne and the rights
of man
Week8: Bentham and utilitarianism; the idea of public policy and a
parliament that governs for the people
Week9: The American experience: Jefferson’s thought and the
American constitution as the ultimate liberal conservative text.
Week10: Adam Smith, both extracts on the invisible hand and the entirety of the theory of moral
sentiments.
Week11: John Stuart Mill –utilitarianism refined, anti-slavery, on
liberty, the harm principle.
Week12: Mary Wollstonecraft and the right to universal suffrage (a
fitting lead in to 20th century politics)
Week13: review
Theory 2 — 20th century
political theory and history
Week1: The big themes of the 20th century—fascism,
socialism and liberalism caught in the middle, the world wars, the depression,
the cold war; the rise of economics, post-colonialism and the inequity of
development.
Week2: Marxist political thought week 1—readings from Marx,
principally the manifesto
Week2: Fascist political thought—go back to Plato’s republic and
the idea of a perfect state where everyone has their role. The state before the
individual. Parallels with some bad conservative thinking.
Week3: history of the inter-war period—why was fascism popular?
Why was communism popular? The Depression, the humiliation of Germany, the
horrific history of serfs in Russia etc
Week4: liberal thinking between the wars week1—Karl Popper on
negative utilitarianism, the open society and its enemies, the poverty of
historicism, fallibilism and scientific method, critical rationality etc;
perhaps a reading from Isiah Berlin.
Week5: liberal thinking between the wars week2—Hayek and the use
of knowledge in society, his legal thinking; the origins of libertarianism
Week6: liberal thinking between the wars week3—oakshott, Churchill
and the making of modern conservatism
Week7: The denouement of World War 2—the development agenda. The
Marshall plan for Europe, the Bretton Woods system, the Federal Reserve the
move away from the Gold Standard
Week8: Marxist political theory week2—the cold war years. Readings
from Marcuse in particular, as well as the other precursors to the Frankfurt
school.
Week9: Marxist (inspired) political theory week3—the modernists,
notably the Frankfurt school and critical theory. This should have its own
course.
Week10: Marxist (inspired) political theory week4—the
post-modernists, notably Foucault, feminist perspectives and perhaps Lyotard
because he is such a good introduction to the debunking of meta-narratives
idea. Obviously its own course.
Week11: Postcolonialism
Week12: Neo-liberalism under Reagan and Thatcher. How is it
different to classical liberalism? Libertarianism with readings from Nozick. I
would suggest having a guest lecture here from an economist steeped in
Freidman.
Week13: review
One thing that I would like to draw attention to here is the
readings. I don’t believe in textbooks in the humanities unless they are simply collections of
primary texts with some supporting explanation. You must read the originals
because through the originals you grasp the historical progression of political
thought. Some classical texts are written in a style that is very clumsy to
modern sensibilities; I grasp that. This is where the lecturer comes into play.
They must provide two things: a detailed explanation of and expansion upon the
primary texts and a sketch of its historical context. For example, Hobbes makes
much more sense amidst an understanding of the British civil war and revolution
than he does in isolation. Locke’s work on tolerance and property is more powerful
when set against the backdrop of the violence between Protestants and Catholics
and the history of serfdom in the United Kingdom. The readings themselves
should be short extracts for the most part, but some essays, like ‘On
Tolerance’ can be given in full. A big part of an arts education is learning to
speed read. When only extracts are given there should be many of them.
Assessment should be designed so that students are required, primarily, to do
the readings and attend lectures. Only 30% of the assessment is required, at
most, to determine which students have barely understood the material, which
students have understood it thoroughly, and which students have understood it
so thoroughly that they can critically engage with it. This can be achieved with
a small portion of a final exam and a single longer essay with an ‘evaluate’
nature.
I’ll stop now. There are some notable absences from these courses.
I particularly lament the absence of Bertrand Russell, but I think his ideas on
liberty aren’t really unique, just very well articulated. The presence of
Popper means that mid-20th century ‘social liberalism’ has some
presence. I think it would also be nice to fit in something on the
neo-Platonists like Strauss, but that is perhaps a bit much for what is meant
to be an introductory course.
What are people’s thoughts?
Comments
Post a Comment