%20-%20https://sketch.com%20--%3e%3ctitle%3e3ECBBF50-FD08-412A-943D-2CFC5E025A16%3c/title%3e%3cdesc%3eCreated%20with%20sketchtool.%3c/desc%3e%3cg%20id='Stylesheet'%20stroke='none'%20stroke-width='1'%20fill='none'%20fill-rule='evenodd'%3e%3cg%20transform='translate(-926.000000,%20-668.000000)'%20id='BUTTONS'%3e%3cg%20transform='translate(100.000000,%20597.000000)'%3e%3cg%20id='BTN-/-RIGHTS'%20transform='translate(816.000000,%2065.000000)'%3e%3cg%20id='ICON-/-Rights'%20transform='translate(10.000000,%206.000000)'%3e%3cpath%20d='M13.5752841,0%20L1.34943182,0%20C0.59375,0%200,0.586666667%200,1.33333333%20L0,22.6666667%20C0,23.4133333%200.620738636,24%201.34943182,24%20L17.6505682,24%20C18.40625,24%2019,23.3866667%2019,22.6666667%20L19,5.36%20L13.5752841,0%20Z%20M13.5752841,1.89333333%20L17.0838068,5.36%20L13.5752841,5.36%20L13.5752841,1.89333333%20Z%20M1.34943182,22.6666667%20L1.34943182,1.33333333%20L12.1988636,1.33333333%20L12.1988636,5.36%20C12.1988636,6.10666667%2012.7926136,6.69333333%2013.5482955,6.69333333%20L17.6235795,6.69333333%20L17.6505682,22.6666667%20L1.34943182,22.6666667%20Z'%20id='Shape'%20fill='%23595959'%20fill-rule='nonzero'%3e%3c/path%3e%3ccircle%20id='Oval'%20stroke='%23595959'%20stroke-width='1.5'%20fill='%23595959'%20cx='9.5'%20cy='13.5355339'%20r='5.5'%3e%3c/circle%3e%3cpolyline%20id='Path-2'%20stroke='%23FFFFFF'%20stroke-width='1.5'%20transform='translate(9.500000,%2013.035534)%20rotate(45.000000)%20translate(-9.500000,%20-13.035534)%20'%20points='8%2016.0355339%2011%2016.0355339%2011%2010.0355339'%3e%3c/polyline%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
This article maps ways to maintain a sustained commitment to flipping the script of dominant perspectives in the pedagogy of political science. We use our experiences as first-generation immigrants and women of color to examine how our subjectivity as outliers in the discipline and the academy Footnote 1 has shaped our approaches to teaching. Our stories, experiences, and professional orientations are not the same. One author came to the United States from India as an adult, the other as a child in exile from Iran. One studies international security from an empirical standpoint; the other is a feminist and cross-cultural political theorist. Despite our different histories, intellectual pursuits, and pedagogical styles, we share a commonality in our critical approach to teaching in the discipline. We embrace a political science of margins—one in which our subject positions and pedagogical approaches challenge the hegemony of Western- and particularly US-centered ideas and narratives. We do this by challenging what we teach as well as how we teach it. Our goal is to have students think critically about how dominant perspectives reflect established power dynamics and modes of domination. Our syllabi and teaching methods model a critical approach to the discipline and practice of politics.
SUBJECTIVITY IN THE CLASSROOM
We teach at a predominantly white, middle-class institution in Washington state. As a result of both our location (i.e., 90 miles from an urban center in the far northwest of the country) and the demographics of our state (i.e., approximately 80% white), we are often one of the few people of color in our classroom. As first-generation immigrants, we also tend to be one of the few—if not the only—people with a lived international perspective. In addition, as women in the classroom, we take on positions of authority distinctive from our male colleagues. It is sometimes difficult for students to recognize and acknowledge our expertise. We have been asked by students if we “really have a PhD” and, in situations of grading disputes, if they can “speak to a higher-up.” When we teach feminist approaches, students are skeptical about the value of studying alternative viewpoints—a skepticism that is absent when we discuss mainstream European and American approaches. Students sometimes treat us as authentic insiders who are expected to know all about the language, cultures, and political nuances of the Other, particularly when it concerns the Middle East and South Asia. Because of our complicated and intersectional subject positions, our experiences have been both challenging and illuminating.
These interactions also have been opportunities to broaden our students’ thinking and perspectives. We have been able to mobilize and confront their assumptions by asking them to understand the context and conditions by which ideas and practices are given meaning. Furthermore, we ask our students to think about how their own preformed assumptions and resulting biases shape their understanding of political phenomena. As self-reflexive and reflective teachers, we encourage our students to think about their own subject positions and histories when engaging with the content of our courses. Such an approach helps them to develop their broader critical-thinking and interpretive skills. In this way, we advocate a pedagogy of margins, one that takes at its core the belief that students—in their intellectual pursuits and as citizens—should actively practice critical thinking outside of their pre-established frames. We believe that such a pedagogy provides them with skills to become critical consumers of information and empathetic global citizens as well as a broad-based conceptual knowledge about politics.
A PEDAGOGY OF MARGINS
Encouraging our students to engage in critical thinking is at the core of our pedagogical endeavor. This was true long before the 2016 US elections; however, the mission has become much more vital in an environment in which truth and facts are viewed as fungible concepts. What, then, is critical thinking? It represents the ability and willingness to comprehensively explore issues, ideas, and events before accepting or formulating an opinion or conclusion that reaffirms a prior bias. When we teach critical thinking, we want students to identify a problem or a statement’s assumption; challenge those assumptions in a reasoned manner; explore alternatives on the basis of evidence; and consider how their preformed conceptions might affect their interpretations of ideas (Brookfield Reference Brookfield1987; Kurfiss Reference Kurfiss1988).
Because the majority of our institution’s student body has had little experience outside of their own cultures and identities, we want our students to consciously and consistently identify and challenge their geopolitical, cultural, and ideological biases and perspectives. To do this, we ask them to explore literatures and ideas that do not easily jibe with their lived knowledge. Furthermore, we provide learning activities that help them understand the real-world applications of non-hegemonic political discourses and practices.
Deparochializing and Decolonizing the Syllabus
Political science education in the United States assumes American power, ideology, and institutions to be at its core. For example, political-theory courses often focus on Anglo-American and Western traditions of thought and their contributions to our current understanding of citizenship and power. The ways in which that thought has affirmed established forms of domination have not been sufficiently addressed (Mills Reference Mills2015). With the focus on realist and liberal theories, international relations (IR) scholarship often affirms American models of politics and action. Concepts such as realism, neoliberal institutionalism, and hegemonic stability reinforce the implied superiority of US approaches to foreign policy. To the extent that alternative approaches are studied, they often are placed as an afterthought, particularly in empirical studies. Footnote 2 American politics centers the discipline on US political institutions, history, and practices in ways that interpret practices outside of the narrative of American exceptionalism (e.g., slavery, suffrage, and McCarthyism) as outliers rather than core elements. Comparative politics also often centers Western concepts and explanations of political behavior and is less at ease in discussing forms of governance that developed outside of Europe and the United States. Footnote 3 We are concerned that students continue to see the West in general—and the United States in particular—as the pinnacle of political thought, power, and behavior without considering how this reflects complex power relations. For these reasons, we are committed to deparochializing and decolonizing our syllabi. In doing so, we seek to challenge the epistemological centering of Western ideas and to recognize the ways in which imperialism is central to many of the conceptual and historical politics of Euro-American power.
We are concerned that students continue to see the West in general—and the United States in particular—as the pinnacle of political thought, power, and behavior without considering how this reflects complex power relations.
The first step in deparochializing our pedagogy is to view our own syllabi from a critical perspective. Placing a few non-Western articles in our syllabus does not put Euro-American ideas into real conversation with the rest of the world. Rather, we must think about political science as an internally critical enterprise. This involves asking our students to place themselves outside of their known boundaries of thought and to develop cognitive empathy or the ability to understand the thoughts, beliefs, and motivations of actors outside their boundaries of familiarity and comfort (Bloom Reference Bloom2016). As we develop our syllabi, we ask ourselves the following questions. First, do our readings reinforce and/or idealize Euro-American notions of power? If so, we might begin the course with critiques of Western thought. For example, a feminist-theory course might begin with intersectional critiques of the history of feminism (hooks 2000; Lorde Reference Lorde, Lewis and Mills2003). An exploration of the IR theory of realism might begin with non-Western articulations of power, for example, by unpacking the concept of state sovereignty to make it more relevant to understanding postcolonial societies. Footnote 4
Second, do the readings and discussions explain why certain practices and ideas are dominant? Why, for example, does realism occupy such a prominent place in IR theory? Why do many scholars assume that the decline of American hegemony will lead to disorder rather than a reordering of the international system (Mazaar Reference Mazaar2017; Nye Reference Nye2017)? Why do we assume liberalism and democracy to be the pinnacle of political thought? We encourage our students to acknowledge the enormous power and influence of the United States while simultaneously recognizing the agency of non-US actors.
Active Learning Exercises in Critical Thinking
It is not enough, however, to change what we read in our courses. We also must think about how to change the ways in which we teach material so that our students can critically assess key ideas, practices, and literatures. This section discusses class assignments and activities that meet our pedagogical goal of decentering the United States and deparochializing the discipline, particularly in the context of IR and political theory. These exercises illustrate how students can be taught to decenter and challenge American and Western dominance.
An Inside-Out Perspective on International Conflict
Courses on international conflict often create a dichotomy between violence-plagued postcolonial societies and orderly US and Western leadership. Footnote 5 When examined without critical appraisal, this promotes the impression that countries of the Global North are—or should be—the “rescuers” of the misguided populations of the South. To challenge this assumption, we begin our class with a viewing and discussion of the PBS Frontline film, The Interrupters. Set in Chicago, the film tracks an antiviolence program, CeaseFire, that sends former gang members to defuse conflicts before violence erupts. Footnote 6 We ask students to reflect on the film’s depiction of violence in the United States and the role that intervenors play in its diffusion. The class then approaches international conflict with the realization that systemic violence occurs “here” as well as “there.” In class discussions, students reflect on how conflict-management approaches might well apply to the United States and not only “poor, underdeveloped” countries.
Responses to Political Risk in the United States
Discussions of political risk often focus on instability in lower-income countries, particularly those with relatively new political institutions. In our class, we consciously attempt to discuss the ways in which political developments in the United States can be seen as risky by other actors. In the 2016–2017 term, students assumed the role of advisers to specific countries. Each adviser was required to present an analysis of that country’s reactions to growing populism and protectionism in the United States. This exercise encouraged students to understand how non-US actors were shaping their own autonomous positions on trade and other issues in response to an uncertain political climate in the United States. Students wrote papers on countries including Vietnam and Malaysia, reflecting on how relatively small players in the international system develop and pursue their own priorities, independent of US dictates.
Who Calls the Shots in an International Crisis?
Our classes on American foreign policy include simulations of international crises. Students are assigned to country teams tasked with devising responses to a given crisis. Although the exercise always includes the United States, students assigned to other countries must advocate that actor’s national interests. As they participate in the exercise, all teams quickly learn that the United States must work in cooperation with other actors to reach a mutually acceptable and feasible solution. In class discussions, the US team is encouraged to discuss the geopolitical constraints that it faced in furthering its national interests. Non-US teams reflect on how they exercised foreign-policy autonomy and challenged—or even ignored—the United States. Student feedback consistently notes the importance of learning the constraints of American power through this exercise (Biswas and Paczynska Reference Biswas and Paczynska2015).
An essential way to make political theory accessible to undergraduates is by moving back and forth from the analytic practices of close reading to the lived experiences of cultural and political understanding.
Applying Theory to Practice
By applying theories to contemporary political problems, students can be engaged in critical thinking about dominant Western political theories such as liberalism and conservatism. In one exercise, students debate a particular global issue from the perspective of these theories and then think about who or what the theories might exclude. For example, students use the work of John Locke and Immanuel Kant to consider the concept of universal human rights. They first must make the case, through their readings, for universal human rights. We then turn to differing conceptions of rights from non-Western thinkers such as Syad Abu A’la Maududi and Confucius to consider how claims of universal human rights assume dominant forms of Western thinking. This process helps students to actively engage with alternative formations of rights claims. They come to understand that concepts they often idealize (e.g., human rights and democracy) have complicated and nonlinear histories.
Reading Films as Political Texts
An essential way to make political theory accessible to undergraduates is by moving back and forth from the analytic practices of close reading to the lived experiences of cultural and political understanding. As Schapp (Reference Schapp2005) argued, “[c]ompetency in political theory requires an ability to move from the general to the particular and back again, not simply by applying general principles to particular events and experiences but by reflecting on and rearticulating concepts in the light of the particular.” We encourage students to look at cultural artifacts (e.g., films) as part of the way theoretical ideas come to have lived meanings. By applying theoretical texts to films, we can see how American ideals are both affirmed and challenged. For example, in our politics and culture class, we critically examine texts about freedom, liberation, and gender/sexuality against the backdrop of the “war on terror.” When students juxtapose Okin’s Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women? (1999) and Butler’s Frames of War: When Is Life Grievable? (2010) with the 2013 film Zero Dark Thirty, they begin to understand how liberalism and feminism are articulated in and against the Muslim Other. These pairings demand that students see the varying effects of dominant claims on political actors across the globe.
CONCLUSION
Critical-thinking skills have long been a central component of political science pedagogy. In the current sociopolitical environment, it is vitally important that youth in the United States approach citizen engagement from a perspective that questions hegemonic discourses and practices. However, this task is easier said than done. Political polarization, leaders who display contempt toward facts, and the proliferation of social-media outlets are among the forces that make it difficult to develop the necessary patience and fortitude to critically examine truth claims. Despite these challenges, we—as instructors—still have the power to shape classroom content and discussion. We have found great benefit in deparochializing and decolonizing our syllabi as well as in providing pedagogical activities that challenge our students to think about dominant approaches in political science. In their writing as well as in class discussions, we regularly witness students attempting to see perspectives outside of their comfort zones—an experience that is both deeply uncomfortable and immensely fulfilling.
This article discusses ways in which we encourage our students to confront the biases of both the discipline of political science and the practice of politics. Our goal has been to hone in our students a sustained commitment to flipping the script of dominant perspectives and practices. It is clear that our subjective positions have brought us to these approaches; however, we believe that political scientists of all identities and intellectual persuasions would find useful our attempts to challenge hegemonic conceptions of politics and power. These approaches would be beneficial to those who want their students to develop critical-thinking skills and the willingness and ability to see the political world from varying perspectives. We share our experiences and suggestions in the hope of contributing to the larger effort of strengthening citizen engagement through pedagogy.
