teaching, conferences and rats
Took over Prof P's class during Karin Fierke/Discourse Analysis session. Half the class was missing so turned it into a Q&A session in which I asked questions and expected them to answer/elaborate upon points we were making. The students didn't seem to expect the Q&A and took a while to start responding and asking questions of their own but it went off well.
Today, I had one of those classes when you
know it's one of those days in which you'd rather not teach but just take things as they are and see how they go. All a rather fluffy way to say we sat and chatted about development, colonisation and globalisation--all in one one-hour session.
Why was I substituting for Prof P yesterday, yous ask (or, let's presume you do). Well, because he's off at SmallRegionalConference. I, on the other hand, am not. But, if I were, here's what I'd be doing.
Yesterday's Pearls Before Swine. Go
here and check Rat.
Labels: classes which are not mine, comics, discourse analysis, Fierke, teaching world politics
sometimes i want to throw the book at the wall*
As I sit here, flipping through the (required) text book for my class tomorrow, I come across this:
"This is the century in which desperate African states will be able to press their demands with weapons of mass destruction, and in which fanatics may destroy cities with nuclear weapons" (IR textbook)
Right. Exactly. Those African states. Huh.
* Though, with this book, it will probably bounce back and hit me on the head.
Labels: stupid things in the IR text book no. oh who knows what?, teaching world politics
teaching and television shows
Today, I had a guest lecturer in my class. In terms of figuring out different teaching styles, it was a marvellous experience to watch someone else deal with
my kids. To watch someone else perform.
I've more thoughts about teaching (and learning) styles and about how universities should really make junior instructors sit in on each others' classes so we can all learn from each other but shall save those for a later time as I am in need of sleep.
In the meantime, keep yourselves entertained with these: a couple of shows about fairly similar subjects ("race relations") and targeted towards a "tween" audience. I've only watched two episodes of one ("
Life is Wild") and one of the other ("
Aliens in America") but that (obviously--I mean, this is what academics
do) will not stop me from writing about both from time to time.
If yous are interested-the first is an American version of a British show and features an American family who has moved to South Africa to run a lodge. The second is about a Pakistani (I think?) exchange student who has moved in with a typical (Midwestern) American family. Hijinks (presumably) ensue.
Labels: Aliens in America, lecturing and learning styles, Life is Wild, teaching world politics
The "burn those heels! " post
Today, I actually did my usual walk to uni (well, half way there since I catch a bus part of the way) in a pair of shoes with actual, proper heels. If yous are interested in seeing what they were like, go
here*
That meant I had them on all day.
During the course of the day, I managed to (literally) bump into practically everyone I know at TUWSNBN, was late to teach so had to detour through a floor I usually don't walk on (and tripped and almost fell on my way out a door) and actually did fall backwards while climbing stairs. The last could have been nasty but I was prevented from falling all the way to the floor by a rather helpful kid.**
I do have more classroom stories to share but am now sat at home, recovering from the shoes of horror so yous will have to wait till tomorrow.
* No, those are not the actual shoes I had on--mine were not "open-toed" and actually have lower heels. Still, for me, they were not low enough.
** Who commented, "I was scared you were going to fall on me"--well, so was I.
Labels: climbing stairs, shoes, teaching world politics, those heels were (not) meant for walking
"we" the people of wherever...
A round-up of a few things since I don't have time for much else:
1. The class is going okay. I wouldn't say (write) it's going brilliantly but it's not going too badly. Another instructor and I had a
long talk a few days ago and we both agreed that we hated the text book but we have been dealing with it in different ways. I have used it as a "reference" and assigned articles to the kids. He is using the book and realising it is not ideal. Hah.
The thing we both are having issues with is: how much is enough? Or, when I get one class session of just over an hour to cover "terrorism", what do I talk about? The problem I've been having (and my colleague agreed) was that we both tend to think we should cover a set amount of
stuff and we end up talking too much. It's bloody frustrating.
2. Life: Life is not going okay. I mean, it's going but it's not great. I'm sure yous don't need to read all about that here so I'll save it until I see/meet some/all of yous in Real Life (if I do).
3. Midterms: I'm actually amazed that almost all the kids seemed to have understood most of the concepts well and can apply them on various occasions. The most popular section was my "self-made" section, in which I gave them two assignments.
In the first, they had to read a "foreign" newspaper for 5 days and answer a list of questions based on what they read. Then, they had to discuss how that country's "interests" were defined and communicated and, finally, relate what they read to concerns here in the United States.
In the second assignment, I proposed that Iran "was actively seeking to improve its nuclear capabilities" and then asked what different actors would do, in such a case. I then listed a few questions (Including: "Where would Iran acquire nuclear material from? Justify your answer" and "how would daily life for Iranians be affected--provide evidence from online sources")
For both these questions, the students spent a lot of time speculating on various actors, the differences among various actors and a few of them even proposed elaborate plans for what would happen. I enjoyed reading these.
Things I didn't enjoy reading? Well, the many, many common grammar mistakes that native English speakers made. During my undergrad, there was a class called "Effective Writing" which all students had to take. Most of my students here would greatly benefit from a similar class instead of some of the classes they
are required to take.
The highlight (as a learning experience for me, too!) so far? One of my essay question asks: "Is democracy-promotion a policy worth pursuing? Why or why not?"
Almost half my students answered this question, including some international students. All the American students answered it as "Should WE (i.e. the United States) promote democracy?" but without specifying this. They then used "we" liberally throughout their answers. None of the international students did so.
I wonder why? I've noticed that I, too, don't talk about "We" (the Nepalis). Even when the discussion is about Nepal, I say (and write), "they" or "the Nepalese people".
Saying "we" automatically gives a kind of legitimacy to what is being said especially in view of the person speaking being part of the "we". It is difficult to argue against statements like "we believe in democracy-promotion". Though, does "we" have a place in an academic essay? I say No. Not just because it's "unacademic" (whatever
that may be) but because it is unreflexive.
But, I think it needs a different person than me* to explain the relations of power-knowledge inherent in identifying oneself with the dominant global power. Or, behind using terms such as "we" and "we promote democracy" while blithely unaware of the assumptions underlying such usage.
Right. Off to grade some more midterms. Hopefully it won't be a week before yous have to read all about my oh-so-exciting life again.
* Again, an "effective writing" course, which discusses issues of power (as mine did!) and the concept of reflexivity would be fantastic.
Labels: democracy-promotion, grammar policing, midterm exams, real life, teaching world politics
the week so far (or, how I learnt to stop whingeing and love grading)
Monday: Finished grading one section of a graduate-level course I'm TA-ing for. Happened at 4am. Slept.
Tuesday: Got up at 7am. Thought that there was something that I needed to do. Ah yes, the lecture for my own class. Contemplated calling in sick. Realised it was "security" day and decided to ad lib.
Class went surprisingly well. We talked about issues of "traditional" security and "human" security.
Wednesday: Ditched the Dalai Lama to have lunch with two out of three dissertation committee members and a rather nice globalisation scholar (NGS). Wore a proper shirt (with jeans and a pair of red shoes) as a concession to formality only to find NGS was one of those typically-casual and amusing European types who wouldn't have cared if students had shown up in flip-flops. Joined 3 other TUWSNBN's PhD-ers in listening to said scholar's talk. It was all about how the state is now obsolete.
Felt rather miserable since my dissertation is all about the state. Wondered how to inform it that it was irrelevant and useless as various "transboundary" stuff was going on.
Graded. Unendingly. Still haven't gotten to my own class's grades yet. Slight panic.
Thursday: Only day off. Threw some more stuff at the floor, messed up the desktop even more and spent much of the day (you know what's coming up by now) grading. Still not even half-way done for the graduate class. Panic increased.
Decided to quell disaster by wandering off to the Verizon Centre to watch the Caps. It was "Student Rush" day (hence cheap tickets) but the Caps lost (as they tend to do when I watch). Displeased.
More grading. More last-minute lecture-writing. Realised that "following the text book" would have made for a much easier class. Instead, read the articles on "Security on Film", cobbled together a quick lecture (with a few pictures) and started off class discussion with this question:
"Why are we quite happy to celebrate the Dalai Lama and give him medals while worrying about Islamic theocracies?"
Got dirty looks for being a Conservative nutter type. Was informed the DL was "all about peace" and "looked harmless" (good way to get into issues of representation here)
Then, asked them whether the US would see it as a security threat if Gov. Arnold decided that California should secede from the United States and then establish his own "Terminatorland" where everyone would have to follow some odd religion*. Got them to think about this for a while...then discussed representations and contexts.
Finished up with a (slightly militant) commentary on representations replicating power relations in the world. Talked about the film Bridge on the River Kwai (which was mentioned in their reading) and about media ownership (Rupert Murdoch).
Not quite sure how all this went--was too tired to think. Went home, graded some more.
Blogged. Just to show how incredibly dreary and without-much-spare-time the life of a postgrad student/teacher is.
* One student yelled out "Jedi" at this point--led to another tangent about quite a lot of people picking "Jedi" as their religion in the last British census and speculation about the outcome of a fight between the Terminator and a Jedi.
Labels: giving everyone a B+, representations of security, teaching world politics, Terminatorland, the week so far
just bloody tired of it all
After today's class, I am tired. Tired of teaching students. Tired of trying to find examples that make sense to students who don't remember a world in which terrorism was not the major organising feature of society. Tired of trying to talk of other parts of the world that aren't the United States and Europe and having students stare blankly back at me. Tired of dealing with a textbook with a strong normative bias towards "what is best for/the concern of the United States" masquerading as a book on world politics.
I remember my International Politics class. It was, as is this one I'm teaching, the first class I had to take as an undergrad. We read writings (on dealing with colonisation) from Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Burma, and Philippines. We read diaries of explorers who went to China and PNG. We discussed whether Australia would ever have an "Asian" identity. We talked about if multiculturalism could "work" and how this beast might look like. We talked about trade and how to make the trading system inclusive. We talked about the effect of trading patterns on small farmers and how trade had changed since the colonial days. Colonisation informed much of the dicussions--as did human (indigenous peoples') rights and trade.
I dug out a photograph (the only one I have) from my first year--it's a picture of students from Nepal, India, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Cambodia, Vietnam, Botswana, Vanuatu, Nauru, Fiji, PNG, New Zealand, Germany, Sweden and, of course, Australia sitting around a table at the student union, sheepishly looking at the camera. It's a picture where teenagers are sat with grandmothers. It's a picture of a class I would like to teach.
Yes, I'm romanticising. Yes, it was a different, pre-9/11 world. Yes, it was (is!) Northern Australia so the chances of a terrorist attack occurring there are minimal (leaving time for other concerns). But the time spent thinking about world politics--the time spent discussing how all of us--different in our own ways and histories--had ended up there at that time and place has been as useful as learning about Realism and Liberalism.
I just wish my kids now had that chance--to gather around and talk. To put themselves in other people's shoes. To not write statements like "I have travelled a lot in Europe and I realised they hate me as soon as I say I am American". To learn that being American is fantastic but, to people elsewhere, so is being whatever they are.
Labels: dispirited, teaching world politics, tired, weary
on the road to mandalay...
...there are apparently quite a few monks. A lot of whom, tonight (US time), may well be dead. As may be the current protests there. In Burma, that is.
My first holiday, as a grown-up (I was 21 at that time), was to the borders of Thailand and Burma. As I trudged my way through the forests where the
Thailand-Burma railway (or the Death Railway, as it is oh-so-poetically called) ran, it was fairly easy to believe nothing much had changed in the 50 or so years since the end of World War Two. The forests were quiet, not many people could be seen and the horror stories of wartime, which we'd had to read during
my world politics class, were still fresh in memory. I went all the way up to the Three Pagodas Pass*, found out that the border guards were willing to let a fairly innocuous looking person through and had to haggle for a motorbike ride to the nearest (Burmese) town. Unsurprisingly, probably, it was not much different to the small Thai border towns and the people even understood my dodgy Thai as I bargained for a jade elephant (which I still have).
Later, I found out this border was different--other border areas between Thailand and Burma were teeming with people who had escaped from Burma, many of whom had been living there for decades. New people arrived every day. People were sold from the refugee camps (and ended up in dodgy parts of Bangkok) every day. There was tension among the local Thais and the refugee Burmese. But, at that time, it was my first holiday. I was
seeing and walking through areas I'd read about in my classes. I was following the trail where over 120,000 people had died during the War, just making these train tracks. It was, as most things are for 21-year olds, a grand old adventure.
Why the detour into memory lane? Well, when I had to pick a case for my in-class exercise** for the kids I'm teaching, I thought of and rejected quite a few. The way the textbook for the class is organised, it focuses on cases which are "of interest" to the United States so you are likely to read about Israel, Palestine, NATO, the GWOT and so on. Smaller countries do not get much of a mention. Then, I thought of Burma--the BBC had been reporting about the few protests going on (at that time) and I thought it was an excellent case to see what different actors do (or would do) and to discuss issues of alliance, sovereignty, democracy-promotion and so on. I could (as I did) change the names of the actors and make my students guess the country.
One student did. Then, on Tuesday, I used Burma again as an example of how identities matter in world politics.*** We talked about whether assisting the pro-democracy forces in Burma was in the United States' national interest (and why or why not). We talked about social movements and the status of religious leaders in society. We talked about what would happen, in Burma, if one of them were killed. As they are all from the United States or Japan, the likelihood of their death being in the news would be high. Then, we went through what would happen if I was killed. As a Nepali, I'd hardly rate a mention.**** A rather cheery class, you might say. We also discussed allliances and why the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) admitted Burma as a member and maintained ties with it despite its non-democratic government. We talked about China and its policies. We talked about US interests and how "we" never hear about Burma (or hadn't until very recently). So, yes, Burma's featured a lot in my world politics class this past week.
This means the kids are keen to see what is going on there now. As am I. On a cynical level, I have a feeling that the end will somehow be similar to
1988. Or, even if the pro-democracy forces somehow overthrow the government, that will not change the lot of the people much. On a level that still remembers my walk through the woods at a time when I still thought the world
could be a world of my (our?) making, I do hope the Burmese people get the changes they want. Or, at the very least, cheaper fuel prices.
* Not hiking all the way though--I took public transport partway there!
** See post on democracy: a social experiment.
*** This week is "constructivism week".
**** Unless I was killed in a rather
spectacular fashion. And, of course, numbers matter.
Labels: burma, dreaming of the past (but without the gory bits), teaching world politics, travelling
democracy: a social experiment, part II
Well, it went okay. I think they had more fun trying to guess the various actors (one kid guessed them all) rather than proposing options and I didn't have much time at the end to discuss some of the concepts I wanted to talk to them about. But it wasn't too bad and it got them interacting with each other rather than listening to me talk.
I still am not sure what this World Politics business is all about--I think most of them
get issues of balance of power; role of the hegemon; alliances and regimes and so on but if you were to wander into my class and ask them to recite "the three strands of feminism" (don't ask--this was one of the topics in the study guide handed out to me a couple of days ago), then they'd probably turn blank faces at you. But (hopefully), they would be able to tell you what feminism offers to the study of world politics and how it is a critique of other ways of analysing world politics.
Is that enough? I don't know. Do they need to
know what deterrence is (definition of), the three types of "decision-making models" and so on? I don't think so. I mean, I taught the higher-level research course for the past two semesters--I know that by the time they get to that class, these kids are not going to remember much of anything they will be learning in my World Politics class. But, just maybe, they will remember some of the exercises, arguments and debates we are having.
I do live in hope.
Labels: clever kids, democracy experiment, hopeful, so what's the country then?, teaching world politics
democracy: a social experiment, part I
Tomorrow's class is on "democracy". The kids are reading Michael Doyle's 1986 article on "Liberalism and World Politics" and a couple of short pieces on democracy promotion and such.
But, instead of drilling into their heads whatever "democracy" is, I'm planning on doing a "Conference" in which I'm dividing them into 7 actors, giving them an issue and telling them to figure out what they would do about it. Since I've not actually done this sort of thing before, I'm laying it all out here for your entertainment.
I should probably mention that I want them to (hopefully) discuss the Democratic Peace Theory (we already talked about this in the previous class), figure out ways to balance/challenge the hegemon, talk about what "rationality" would entail and get into issues of hard and soft power, levels of analysis and get into how they would deal with each other. In other words, I'd like to get us to discuss concepts without making it obvious. Am I likely to be successful? Tune in tomorrow and find out.
In the meantime, have a read through and email me or comment on any additions/amendments yous can think of. As I said, this is the first time I'm even attempting this. Who knows what chaos it will lead to.
On Democracy:
The IssueCountry Y is currently experiencing political turmoil. For the past decade, it has been under strict military control and is considered to be very repressive. It is a “one party, military-led state”. Dissent is disallowed, press freedom is nonexistent and protesters are arrested and jailed. Many previous demonstrations have been ruthlessly quelled and people are “disappeared” yearly. The military has controlled political and economic activities of the country. The country itself is one of the poorest in its region. Inter-ethnic tensions are high. In addition, the trafficking of women and children from Y to neighbouring countries and across continents is high as is transport of drugs. It is believed the military junta is finding it difficult to quell the protests.
In the past week or so, there has been widespread protests over the rising costs of essential items. At the same time, the government has announced it has the means to acquire WMD's from a state not friendly with the Hegemon. Surprisingly, just yesterday, news filtered out of a find of Xacon in the country. Xacon is a mineral which can be used as an alternative energy source instead of fossil fuels. It is also inexhaustible—every time you remove a ton of Xacon from the earth, another ton takes its place. So far, Y is the only country in the world with a sustainable amount of Xacon.
Different actors are meeting in Copenhagen, Denmark next month to discuss what to do about this situation. You, as the representative, have to decide what to do. Keep in mind your goal is to maintain order and promote peace and plan accordingly.
The Actors: Actors
You are the Hegemon. You do not border Y but Y occupies a strategic position in a region in which you are increasingly losing your foothold and you need allies there. You have also promised the other actors in the region that you will provide military assistance, if they are threatened. In addition, this new find of Xacon could allow you to change energy sources and increase your position of power in the global arena. So far, you have criticised policies within Country Y and have banned all investment in there but your main goal is to promote democracy.
You are Together, a regional economic and political organisation. Y is part of your organisation and you have been pursuing an “engagement” policy with it in the hopes that things will change. You do not have any sanctions or embargoes on Country Y. Should you keep up with this policy? What are the benefits (and drawbacks) of alliance? You are thinking about these issues as TogetherElsewhere, another more powerful regional organisation, has announced plans for an arms embargo against Country Y.
Mr. White: You are the leader of country Y. You have been invited to the conference in Copenhagen and need to have a plan ready to propose to the other actors. You have just received information about the Xacon find in your country.
Regional Power State: You are the regional power. Your relations with the Hegemon are good in terms of trade relations and yet you are considered to be a potential rival or threat in geopolitical terms. You also border Country Y and have been a supporter of Y's regime. You recently vetoed a UN resolution criticising Y's government's treatment of its ethnic groups.
Help All: You are an international nongovernmental organisation which campaigns for human rights. While other countries were ignoring Country Y, you have always tried to bring its issues to the region's, if not the world's attention. However, many of your representatives have been arrested and forbidden from entering country Y. The current situation could be an opportunity...or not.
You are two of Y's neighbours—X and Q.
Q: You border Y and the Hegemon has bases on your territory. If you are threatened, the Hegemon has promised to come to your help. However, Q itself had a recent coup in which the military took control. Many refugees from Country Y also live along your shared borders and you are likely to find it difficult to accommodate more refugees if the situation within Y declines. You have strong economic ties with Y and have built industries and hydroelectric projects there.
X is one of the most prosperous countries in the region. It has advocated engagement with Y and is also in favour of non-intervention. It argues for a local, regional variation on democracy and says the “Western” version of democracy is not suited for all places.
Mr Orange: you are the leader of the opposition in Country Y. For the past decade, you have had limited power but the current protests are giving you hope. You belong to a minority group that has been repeatedly persecuted by the military government. However, do you want to invite the Hegemon into your country? Your grandparents were killed during WWII and your parents fought for freedom from Colonial rule. You are not sure what to do now.
Well, there you have it. I'll let yous know how it goes tomorrow. This whole "teaching kids about World Politics" gig is far more time-consuming than I thought!
Labels: class exercising, crossing fingers and toes and hoping for the best, democracy-building, teaching world politics
students are multiplying like rabbits or something
Going home on the bus at midnight and having a student pop up and say "Oh, hello Professor!" in a rather cheery voice is not what I wanted for Saturday night.
Do they have to be
everywhere?
The rest of Saturday though: rather good. Went down to "spectate" (as one of my other students called it, in class) at the anti-war gig earlier. It's rather difficult to actually participate when I don't think "our troops" should be brought back home right now.
Talking of "our troops", it's surprising how difficult teaching World Politics without using a pronoun is. I have been doing my best to say "the United States" or "Southeast Asia" but, at times, I find myself slipping into "well, we would have done X". This often happens when I am talking about US foreign policy. I'm not quite sure why I don't use "it"--"we" just slips out, often when I'm making a controversial statement (so the kids can disagree--which they often do with great gusto*)
The kids all use "we" (except the few East Asian kids I have and they use--"the US" or "Japan". They've not said "we" when referring to their own countries) when talking about the United States. What this says about identity, I don't have space (nor time) to get into now but isn't it interesting that citizens of the most powerful state in the world use "we" when talking about their country's policies while others seem less inclined to do so?
Which sort of brings me back where I started--I
know I have 37 students in my current class. So how is it that they seem to pop up everywhere around town? A bus at midnight, for ____ 's sake! And, maybe even more disturbing, why are they so cheery?
* I wrote gusto in a post!
Labels: bus rides at midnight, shiny happy students, teaching world politics, who is "us"?
