 |
| Caffeine and International Relations 101 |
I have spent the morning reading about 'Socratic Seminars' and thinking about the significance of teaching philosophies in thinking about ethics within International Relations. Don't worry, this has been helped by a strong dose of coffee from the espresso machine (which conveniently sits beside my desk) and a classical soundtrack courtesy of my £10 subscription from Spotify (which is loaded onto my work computer).
Looking for ideas about how to use Machiavelli to get our Freshers thinking about knowledge, power and the value of political ideas I chanced upon a website which talked about using a Socratic approach in the classroom. Sometimes to think we need to Google
™ (Cogito, Ergo Google
™?). Sometimes this can produce some pretty unusual examples of curriculum design. In this case, it located a website called
www.socraticseminars.com that provides both educators and students with a philosophy
allegedly in the tradition of Socrates: "In this technological world, it is vital
that students regularly engage in civil, thoughtful, face-to-face
conversations."
The idea of Socratic seminars has an instinctive appeal to me, as I have fond memories of discussing the
Apology by Plato in a course in Classical Political Thought taught by
Professor Michael Jackson at the University of Sydney in 1996. I remember talk about education 'corrupting' the learner and was reminded of finding radical books on education on my father's bookcase (notably Ivan Illich's
Deschooling Society). I remember discussing the heroic politics of sacrifice embodied in Socrates' response to the charges against him. I could imagine the Daily Mail writing about Socrates today: "Socrates Exposed as Leader of Corruption Ring" or "Socrates Fails to Teach GCSE Approved Curriculum".
In the case of the Socratic Seminars, they work from the idea that 'great ideas' (mainly derived from Western contexts) will empower the future generation to leave behind their tablet devices and ask big questions about the placement of knowledge in the world in which we find ourselves today. A noble objective? Perhaps. But just like Carrie Bradshaw might ask,
who defines what is a great idea?
One of the charges against Socrates (as depicted by Plato) was that "Socrates is an evil-doer, and a
curious person, who searches into things under the earth and in heaven, and he
makes the worse appear the better cause; and he teaches the aforesaid doctrines
to others." I don't want to dwell too much on whether Socrates 'corrupted the youth' by enabling them to question religious notions of 'Truth'. What struck me again in reading Socrates' Apology today was the ordering of moral values above strategic ones (wealth, fame, celebrity etc). In calling for future educators to dissuade his own children from seeking
riches above
virtue there must be some moral 'anchor' at work in Socrates' account of knowledge. Socrates might be corrupting, but he 'aint corrupt!
And so, in thinking about whether a Socratic approach can furnish students of international ethics with a new way of thinking about the conduct of power in International Politics there is scope to reflect on whether a deconstructive approach to ethics will allow us to see the relationship between
might and
right within political discourse itself. If Socrates was working in a Department of Political Science, would he today talk about the need to reframe a dominant discourse? I'm sympathetic to a Socratic account of learning. But the type proposed by Socratic Seminars (see below) might run the risk of replacing one orthodoxy with yet another one.
 |
J. Peter Euben,
Corrupting Youth: Political Education,
Culture and Political Theory,
(Princeton University Press). |
On initial inspection, there seem to be a lot of rules and rule-based thinking might potentially result in imposing a generic structure of knowledge rather than looking to the specificities within a given discourse. For example, can we really read Machiavelli's
Prince through the same sets of analytical questions as we might subsequently impose on Kant's
Perpetual Peace? These might appear to be questions relevant to the history of political thought but they have value beyond a strictly political theory setting. After all, political theorists don't have a monopoly on political theory!
I must remind myself that this module concerns itself with
applied ethics and, as such, we must continue to subject our knowledge about what is ethics (what is ethical, what is unethical, what disappears from the horizon of ethics within everyday life) to continual debate, dialogue and ultimately renovation. For those of us who would (even today) put Socrates to death for 'corrupting the youth' there is still value in thinking about the construction of ideas within the International Relations Academy.
I've included extracts from the Socratic Seminars website which gives some ground-rules for the Socratic method in the classroom setting. I would ask my current students to look at these and let me know whether you think that these would encourage us to think about 'ethics' in interesting new ways. If so, how so? If not, why not?
Calling all 1INR620 Ethics and International Relations students, what are your thoughts on the Socratic Seminar method (some extracts below). Please comment!!!!
Extracts from URL:
https://www.socraticseminars.com/education/documents/SocSemNotebookTemplateBethelSDSilverJune19Aug12132009.pdf (Date accessed 03/09/13).
A SOCRATIC SEMINAR LEADER:
- Asks a series of questions that give direction to the discussion.
- Makes sure the questions are understood or rephrases them until they are understood.
- Raises issues that lead to further questions.
- Asks questions that allow for a range of answers deserving consideration and demanding judgment.
- Allows for discussion of conflict or differences.
- Examines answers and draws out implications or reasons.
- Insists that answers be clear or be rephrased until they are clear.
- Requests that reasons for answers be given.
- Does not entertain answers for argument's sake alone.
- Does not insist upon general agreement to a single answer.
- Raises all sides of an argument for examination.
- Practices active listening:
- Waits 3-5 seconds for a reply.
- Accepts student's answer, then requests support: "Interesting answer.
- Why...?"
- Redirects the question: "What does ... mean?
- "How does ... differ from ...?"
- "In what way would ... change if ... were different?"
- "Suppose... happened. What then?
- "How do you think ... was viewed by...?
- Why do you say...?
- Prompts for more: "Say more about no."
GUIDELINES FOR SOCRATIC SEMINAR
PARTICIPANTS
- Refer to the text when needed during the
discussion. A seminar is not a test of memory. You are not learning a
subject"; your goal is to understand the ideas, issues, and values reflected in the text.
- It's OK to pass when asked to
contribute.
- Do not participate if you are not prepared.
A seminar should not be a bull
- session.
- Do not stay confused; ask for
clarification.
- Stick to the point currently under
discussion; make notes about ideas you want to
- come back to.
- Don't raise hands; take turns speaking.
- Listen carefully.
- Speak up so that all can hear you.
- Talk to each other, not just to the
leader or teacher.
- Discuss ideas rather than each other's
opinions.
- You are responsible for the seminar,
even if you don't know it or admit it.
The Think Tank Policy Task is modelled on the Carnegie Council’s Junior Fellows Program, which is targeted at graduates in political science and associated fields. The Think Tank Policy Task is designed to encourage critical reflection of the applied dimensions of ethics within international relations by considering the policy-relevant implications of ethics within IR. Students will be required to identify a policy area within IR and link these to ethical concerns. 
