I am thoroughly enjoying this book!
I have found that students most often have either an indifferent view or a cynical view of American politics or things political. In my discussion forums, then, from the beginning I try to ask questions that highlight the most fundamental issues and questions about the nature of political life. I do so in the hopes of opening students to the essentially philosophical nature of politics and to be open to the importance of politics to how we may best live our lives.
Now, Socrates exemplifies a person who wants to know what is the best way of life for a human being. Such a person will prefer those political arrangements that help or assist him/her in this pursuit. To some extent, does this not represent all of us? Do we not all seek to live the most fulfilling lives that we are able? And, do we not evaluate or judge our politics or political life by how well (or not so well) it helps us in this search? And, as Americans, do we not hold it to be "self-evident" that the end, purpose, or task of any just government is to secure our "pursuit of Happiness?"
Students are not used to approaching politics in such a fashion. Many find it uncomfortable to dialogue in the forums using terms like "just" and "unjust," and considering the possibility that there is any fixed standard by which we are able to evaluate our way of life and our politics beyond personal opinion. I encourage students to be open to the possibility that, through dialogue and reasoning, some standard of the good life for humans and for a political system that allows for living such a life might be arrived at.
I constantly try to encourage my students to consider politics and the way we choose to live our lives from this perspective. In doing so, I struggle with finding a proper balance in the discussion forums between student to student and student-instructor dialogue.
One way I attempt to find this balance is by encouraging each student, through forums, the "news items," and emails, to constantly do their best to put forward their opinion regarding questions on the basis of reason, analysis, and criticism of texts, each other's postings, and especially my postings. I offer examples, too, of good, reasoned dialogue in a discussion forum.
I stress again and again that we are engaging in a journey from opinion towards knowledge of such questions and that my opinions are not "gospel"--that to not question my opinions and assumptions would be to do me an injustice for I too am engaged in the very same process of trying to live a good life in a shared political community.
When students give good reasons for their opinions regarding a question or in questioning a classmate's posting or one of my postings, I really try to compliment them, both in the forum and through email. And I especially compliment them when they question and criticize my postings.
It takes a few weeks, but students do start to respond to my postings...when they dare or take care to offer an opposing view based upon reasoning, contrary evidence, or a different interpretation of a text or argument it is very encouraging!
This is pretty elementary, I guess. But I have found that students do appreciate persistence on my part. They see that I am concerned with fundamental questions--that my constant prodding to view these matters beyond "Politics as Usual" indicates my care and love for the questions, for their opinions on the questions, and for the journey to move beyond opinion towards knowledge of the most important questions.
This is all heady stuff. I offer forums, too, where students may post on lighter questions--a few students have been comfortable enough to post who is their favorite president and why, and to write a POEM about him. I will try to continue to offer opportunities for students to express themselves in a "wacky" or offbeat way on various topics.
I also offer a forum where students may honestly and anonymously post their opinions as to how the course is going, give suggestions and/or likes and dislikes on all course-related matters, or offer suggestions of what they would like to explore in the course. Again, I try to stress as much as possible that I take their opinions seriously because it is a serious undertaking to address political questions.---WWSD?
Whew! I feel as if I am in the process of giving birth!--as if I would truly know!---Midwives? Anyone?
Doodles
15 years ago
2 comments:
Went to see Richard Dawkins speak last night, Mark. During the Q&A session, someone suggested to Dawkins that his last book, The God Delusion, was actually more of a "political" argument rather than an argument based in scientific inquiry.
We use the term "politics" in interesting ways, and it's little wonder that some people are turned off by the term, because it more or less indicates "playing games."
Real political inquiry, of course, goes much deeper than that, which is probably why most politicians just "play politics." They're simply not smart enough to do anything else.
Bret, I would love to see Dawkins--I am a member of a forum or two pitting atheists against Christians/theists. Not for the faint of heart! I have read The God Delusion and I agree that it is a "political argument"--and not a very civil one at that. You see, the greatest defender of atheism of the past half-century, philosopher Sir Anthony Flew--successor to Russell, never deviated from the central Socratic dictum: follow the argument where it leads. Hence, Flew is open to civil discourse; he is open to the possibility of truth. Consequently, he abandoned atheism in favor of a sort of deism after assessing the latest evidence in astro-physics and using logic for the purpose of "furthering" the argument rather than opting to tear down those in comparison to whom he feels "brighter."
Post a Comment