some random thoughts about groceries, mimes and teaching kids
A day in which I spend nearly two hours walking to and from the grocery store, get honked at by folks in a car* and learn that most people I know in Pakistan are okay. Which is a good thing considering over 500 have been arrested and emergency rule established. With friends like these...
I also finally caught up on my students' online discussions--it's pretty encouraging how they have started becoming more confident in their views through the semester and how they are all bouncing ideas off each other. Online. In the class itself, it's less dynamic though the security simulation last week went well. I've also got a few fairly difficult cases and am slightly worried about what to do with them. On the one hand, it's their first semester so I don't want to crush their spirits. On the other hand, if they slack off, they should get penalised. I'll see how things go.
I'm still horribly behind on my grading. So far behind that I've papers from early October as yet ungraded. Between being ill and suddenly acquiring a tendency to fall asleep at odd hours of the day, things have not gone brilliantly this semester. I'm eagerly looking forward to its end.
Oh, and I made $7 as a mime during the time of a metro trip. That's $7 in less than 20 minutes. I suppose I can supplement my (future) pay by being a mime on my days off teaching.
* Thought that only happened in my part of the world. I also think it's because I was wearing a "I'm a Berkeley grouch" t-shirt (with a Sesame Street character on it) and carrying a couple of rather dodgy-looking BigNameConference bags, overflowing with groceries. The bags were free and are very convenient for grocery shopping (especially when the grocery store I like going to is half an hour's walk away). One of the bags had "Power Reconsidered"--in bold blue writing--on it.
Labels: being a mime, grading, pakistan, World Politics
realising realism rocks my canoe
As I sit in front of my computer at 1am on a Friday, after having read quite a few articles about Realism and Hegemony (It's "Realism week" here at World Politics Central), I am reminded of just how much I actually
agree with Realists. Also, how much they are slagged off in the world of International Relations, often for things they would never have agreed with.
Read this: "Realists are often accused of disliking democracy and even of being anti-democratic. This is a bogus charge. Every realist I know would be thrilled to see Iraq turned into a thriving democracy. Realists, however, are well aware of the difficulty of spreading democracy, especially by military means. They also understand that even if the enterprise is successful, that is no guarantee that peace will break out. Democracies as well as non-democracies like having nuclear deterrents, and both kinds of states support terrorism when it suits their interests." (Mearsheimer, at a talk in Germany in 2005)
Reminds me that I need to write up on his and Walt's performance a couple of weeks ago.
Labels: democracy-promotion, Mearsheimer, realism, World Politics
meditations on (of) a sovereign power
Today, I finished the second of my two classes on "sovereignty" for my World Politics course. A few highlights:
- The in-class exercise where I divided them into groups* and had them list characteristics of sovereignty worked rather well. The bit where I told them that our class was like a (domestic) sovereign with me as the sovereign power worked well too, especially as one of the students pointed out that I was not autonomous but had to answer to a higher authority--that of the department of SIS. So, the example (of the class as a sovereign state) wouldn't really work.
- After listing characteristics of sovereignty, we discussed Iraq and how domestic sovereignty was being "compromised" (their term). We also talked about how the invasion/occupation of Iraq was undertaken and the consequences to international sovereignty. Both these discussions went quite well with students ranging in their views to "War was a good idea" to "Well, we're there, we need to figure out what to do next" to "We are the United States, we can do whatever we want".
- Being told, "I want to write a paper on my mancrush, Henry Kissinger". Seriously.**
- Being given a paper with an elaborate drawing of "the Sovereign State of Petoria" by one of the students who then told me he'd like to found and run his own state and if I had any tips for such an endeavour.
- And a related story: One of my students was on the shuttle to the Metro yesterday. Contrary to the usual tactic of avoiding their instructor, this kid sat next to me and we discussed his interests in World Politics (cinema and IR), moving to Washington, going to university and so on. It was actually refreshing to have a student not avoid me (as is most students'--including mine--tendency!) but sit down and have a chat about stuff. Especially as this kid doesn't talk in class at all. It makes me realise that in many ways American kids are more trained in this "social interaction" business than I (and my non-American colleagues probably) have been. Even after all these years of being in academia, my tendency, when I see a professor I know, is to quickly leg it in the opposite direction.
* While I'd like to take credit for the idea, I actually nicked it off Weberman!
** I told the student that I really didn't need to know that and it was an image that will refuse to leave my head from now on.
*** It's a rather clever drawing. I wish I had a scanner to put it on Blackboard. E and I used to spend a lot of our time in one of our postgrad classes doing a similar exercise (drawing concepts out). I believe some of the results even made it to older posts on PTSD.
Labels: "mancrush", am I sovereign?, sovereignty and IR, students, World Politics
a collection of unrelated things
Three things I did today:
I failed miserably at any sort of socially-acceptable behaviour by obviously changing the subject (when death of a colleague and mentor was mentioned) and
then mentioning I was changing the subject.
I dropped a glass of soda in the middle of a crowded restaurant and walked away without offering to help clean it up.
I listened to John Mearsheimer and Steven Walt talk about the Israel Lobby at a local bookstore and actually thought it wasn't a half bad talk. They explained their views, in person, a lot better than they do in the book and they sounded surprisingly normal.
More on the last activity in a later post but, for now, a few thoughts on teaching freshers. Or, rather one main thought on teaching freshers World Politics.
What is the point of teaching them World Politics? Should I ensure they
know the main concepts, even if it were possible to define "sovereignty" or "realism" OR should I make sure they are comfortable discussing these concepts, have some idea of how they are used in World Politics and can come up with exceptions where the concept has not worked?
I've been focusing on the latter--in my last class, I sidestepped defining "sovereignty" to discuss how sovereignty has been used. We talked about how the Peace of Westphalia occurred in a specific, historical and cultural setting (Western Europe) but the concept of sovereign states then spread throughout the rest of the world, thus ignoring existing patterns of political authority. I talked them through the examples of Australia (not "discovered" till much after Westphalia and not settled by Europeans till almost 250 years later. One justification for settlement being that Australia was not a sovereign state, in the sense that the Europeans defined sovereignty) and (recently) Burma.
We then talked about "internal" challenges to sovereignty (again, the example being Australia and the declaration by Aboriginal people of 26 January, Australia Day, as "Sovereignty Day").
Did we discuss definitions of sovereignty? No. Did we discuss scholars and their interpretations? No.
Labels: death, Mearsheimer and Walt, sovereign power, teaching, World Politics
another blasted syllabus
After a summer full of writing and amending all sorts of syllabi, mostly on subjects I have little or no interest in teaching but decided to turn them all into "international development/environment/climate change" aka "how we make sense of stuff" classes, I really didn't need to see or write up another syllabus again.
But, guess what? I did. So, I'm at here, in someone else's house (I'm homeless, in case yous have forgotten), writing a syllabus for TUWSNBN's World Politics class and trying not to weep at the sheer amount of work there is to be done. That's before I even get to class.
Yes, I nicked syllabi off various people again. Yes, I think the "International Security" section is fantastic (I'm making them read about war on film). The other sections? Well, they're getting there. I'm still trying to decide whether I should call the final week's classes "silences and margins" (as a previous professor apparently did) or just "What you missed out in the previous weeks".
There're also debates and international terrorism simulations and discussions about the "North-South Gap".
Just to recap: This semester, I have my own class (World Politics), am TA-ing two postgraduate classes (and attending both) and ostensibly writing more of my dissertation.
Life? Who needs a life, really?
ETA: I just finished a draft of my syllabus--for the final class, I'm getting them to debate "The 21st Century is when everything changes". I wonder if some of them will
get it?
Labels: being homeless, couch-surfing, syllabus-writing, TUWSNBN, World Politics
