a pre-class dialogue, recreated
Yesterday, the class that is held before mine ran over its allotted time. For those of you not at TUWSNBN, let me explain. My class starts at 2.10pm. The previous class is (in my understanding) supposed to end at 1.50pm. It was 2.05 pm and the lecturer was still in the classroom. Now, I like to have a few minutes before my starting time to set up my lecture and just make sure I've got pen and paper(s) on hand. As a fairly new lecturer, I take comfort in setting things up, in the routine. This is difficult when 40 kids are walking out of the room right when I am supposed to be in there, starting my preparation.
I finally got into the room and the professor was still there--getting ready to talk to a few students who had questions for him. As he was talking, I started setting up my lecture, opening up my notebook case and doing things that showed that his time was over.
He finally looked at me and went: Oh, hello
young lady. Can you give me a minute? (there still was a line of four or five students waiting)
Me (in totally put on posh accent): Of course
old chap. But shouldn't you be on your way--you seem to be running rather late.
He left right after that. No, I don't feel proud of myself but since this was the third week his class has run late, I don't feel
too bad.
Labels: accents, teaching, things lecturers do, TUWSNBN
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
chasing cars along the california coastline
I figured, since I'd disappeared, that E would keep yous company. I guess not and it behooves me (always wanted to write that) to update yous on what I've been up to:
- Taught a Global Public Health course for the first time ever. Realised that, in the end, my international law and GPH courses are quite similar (all about complex emergencies, international actors, social responsibility, access and equity issues and so on).
- Was quite sick for the ONE day I had to teach 3 classs. Typical.
- Started and finished indexing a book on Northern Ireland and realised I can now distinguish between the many different paramilitary organisations' acronyms with ease. A tough task that.
- And, best of all (and the reason this is short for now), met up with a (Swedish) friend from grad school days, rented a car (first time ever) and drove on Highway 1* along the California coastline for the past 3 days. Just got back and am now in the process of letting yous know about it.
Highlights: Massive redwoods (well, duh!), magnificent coastlines, seals, sea otters and sea lions, lots and lots of birds, hiking in the forests and sleeping on the beaches and just the general good fun of actually going on such an
American thing like a road trip. Oh yes, and the car we were given had Texas plates (which was amusing in itself for no particular reason except that "OH, there was a Nepali and a Swede who went on a road trip along the California coast in a car with a Texas plate" sounds like the start of a particularly bad joke).
There were also two nights in a proper, actual American motel. A seedy-ish one right by the entrance to the highway.
* Without a road map, by the way. We both decided that "there'll be signs" and just went with that. Surprisingly enough, we only got lost once.
Labels: california wildlife, global public health, road trip, teaching
in-between teaching sessions
Highlights from the first session of my International Law and Human Rights course:
- Being asked "so, did they kill children too?" when discussing the Rwandan genocide and realising that things I think of as being obvious aren't really.
- "Why didn't
you do anything?" (again, when discussing Rwanda and Darfur--and realising that, during the Rwandan events, I was the age my students are now).
I didn't have an answer to this except the rather weak "I didn't even know what was going on", which led to a discussion about news sources, globalisation and living in a fairly remote part of the world. When I was 14-15, I was busy studying for my School Leaving Certificate (Grade 10), we didn't have cable/international television and my reading consisted (mostly) of old Agatha Christie mysteries, Charles Dickens and suchlike.
- Their surprised looks (and "oh, now I feel terrible--greedy, you see") after the Tragedy of the Commons exercise.*
- Being told by the TA's that four of my students now wanted to "learn more about international law" and maybe even "join the United Nations". Bit worrying, that.
- Having one of the students bring up female genital mutiliation (when talking of women's rights) and another ask what that entailed.
- Realising that my flunkie gig provided valuable experience in talking of American law school systems (and first year classes). There's probably some moral in that story about how all painful experiences are ultimately useful but I refuse to believe it.
- Going out to eat with the TA's and project managers (all Juniors or Seniors in undergrad with a couple of recent graduates) and falling back into "Professor" mode while talking about post-undergraduate options.**
The next sessions--law again and also global public health--start on 5 July. I'm sure I'll have more to say on those in upcoming days. Now, it's the first "over 75 degrees" day here in Berkeley so I'm off for a long walk--one which will, hopefully, avoid the (many wonderful) used bookstores. There's a hill behind the university that I want to climb up on.
* This actually went off rather well--no one waited for the second round (where they would have received more money for their fish) as they all grabbed their fish during the first round of fishing. As an exercise in how the Commons are destroyed, it went off perfectly and set up the stage for discussing options of managing such issues.
** I suppose it comes as no surprise to those who know me in that our discussions were mostly about travelling and working overseas.
Labels: berkeley, law, students say the darndest things, teaching
of irish winds and old gentlemen and german others
I seem to have a little time on my hands. I'm in between grading and I've sent my (only a creator could be fond of and even I am not too keen) draft to be read. This is almost twiddling fingers time for me. So, that means there's time for quite a few things--updating yous on the state of my teaching and telling yous about the films I've been watching. So, here I go (in the form of a list, of course):
1. Discusssed a reading with an undergrad. Had an excellent time debating different themes in said reading, backing up seemingly-odd views* by referring to the text and spent nearly 2 hours doing this. Reading? Beckett's "
Krapp's last tape". Student? LilSis2.
2. Tuesday's class, as usual, went totally against plan. Technology, as usual, failed to operate. YouTube video, as always, failed to work on demand. Students, as is their wont, became restless. Felt like sending off a "beware. students are restless. what to do. advise" alert but resisted. Then came THE QUESTION. "What is the difference between objective and subjective ways of doing research?"
(Have decided will be very good in crises from now on and should consider training as a volunteer emergency person)
Brain kept saying "football, football". Ignored it since that is its version of "wave white flag and capitulate and go to happy place".
Instead, asked the kids to say something. Anything.One kid responded by "ohh...the pressure". Others laughed.
There you have it: objective/intersubjective (and, really, there's no "subjective" research in IR. If stuff's in my head, you can't get to it. Nyah. Unless I tell you--then it's intersubjective. The statement and the laughter = intersubjective. Voila!)
Got them to also talk about football as example of obj/intersubj difference. Worked well, I reckon. Kids seem more animated than usual. Could be due to it being a cold day and it also being (I believe) Free Ben & Jerry's ice cream day. But, I shall take it as them being absolutely enthralled by the discussion.
3. Saw (the film, not a peep show) The Lives of Others (aka The Loo). The Loo was not half bad but a bit too laddish for my taste. The (only) woman-with-a-major role betrays her lover, shags an official and then dramatically ... Really! These sorts of women were being written in the '60s and '70s by Fleming,
MacLean and Co. Apparently, they were still around in East Germany in the 1990's.
The LOO's main character, a secret service officer, is a marvellous actor but it's a bit difficult believing the playwright who works within the state system, his lovely pill-popping, MP-shagging girlfriend, the disgraced theatre director who tops himself and the thick secret service folks who can't find a loose floorboard being anything more than caricatures. The ending, however, is excellent. Good job, that.
The scary bit? The constant surveillance by the state, the suspicion, the betrayals of each other, the continuous need to be on guard about what one said and did, and, yet, from watching the LOO, East Germany wasn't too bad, really. No guns, no overt violence, fairly good food to eat (especially if you were part of the artistic community, like the "others" were) and so on.
And informers apparently did quite well. Got ciggies and pills and all that. Definitely not the case in The Wind that Shakes the Barley. There, informers were shot. By their own folks, no less.
Surprisingly, the Irish film made by an Englishman has more well-rounded characters (including women). But--oh all right--not the British who are invariably warmongering louts who shout at the top of their voices and ask the Irish to take their kit off. They--the British that is--also pluck out nails. Not those made of iron and not using hammers but the keratin ones and using pincers.
TWTSTB the film does a good job of pointing out the circular nature of violence, the constant redrawing of lines about who belongs in the community (and who doesn't), the need for (and existence of) fairly unsavoury alliances for strategic means, the compromises made by the pro-Treaty folks and, ultimately, the changes in people. The pragmatic young doctor going off to practice in London becomes a committed socialist promoting public ownership and while his brother undergoes a (reverse) change from IRA member to Treaty-supporter.
In the end, both films are about maintaining order. What the state does to maintain order. How it combats chaos. The alliances it makes to maintain its legitimacy. The constant surveillance (backed up by military means) and the categorisation of people. The fear of being flung back into a Hobbesian state of nature (in the case of TWTSTB, the British returning). On the part of the people, the need to live in fear of their lives.
I'd recommend watching both in a darkened theatre, preferably in the afternoon when not many other folks are there. But, if you can only see one, watch TWTSTB. The details do it, for that one. The stumbling run as the doctor tries to get to an injured colleague; the despair of the older brother who says something along the lines of "if we don't keep order, the Brits will come back" as his men, in turn, commit acts of violence; the old woman who refuses to leave her damaged house, saying she had lived there since she was a child; all these could be cheesy caricatures and, yet, in the hands of these actors, they aren't.
In the end, The LOO distances its viewers--this is what we were like, it seems to be saying. This is where we were. The binary identity constructions--the remote, ruthless secret service bloke "discovers" his humanity; the loving, famous actress is having a sordid affair; the suppression of numbers on large-scale suicides by the (seemingly) squeaky clean state--all those are thrust into the viewers' attention as if to say "Look this is how we were". The added implication is that we (Germany and us, the viewers) have moved on.
Ken Loach and TWTSTB don't do any of that. In TWTSTB, the mechanisms of violence continue, even when the actors change. Here's where we were/are/will be. Violence is central, violence is lurking everywhere and we will have to become
them to exist in our world. Difference is not eliminated or absorbed but, the "Other within" is a violent, bloody stubborn and potentially destabilising force.
I'm ever so scared of discovering the Other within me, after watching these films. Yes, I was told to by, among others,
this lot but I'm not sure my Other(s) are quite ready to be found out. This Other is not a pleasant sight (or activity), really.
* went against most of what was written about the piece.
Labels: Irish rebels (Bolshies, lurking Others, not terrorists) and writers, Stasi, teaching
