Introduction Political Science: Ditching the Textbook

Teaching my university’s first-year Introduction to Political Studies (Poli 1000) is a challenge.  In fact, it’s the most challenging course for me to teach.  The students taking it are composed of the widest variety of talents, interests, and backgrounds.  Some plan to become majors, many are taking it out of interest, or many have registered simply because the timeslot fits their schedule.  Finally, enrollments are large.  It is difficult to teach with breadth and depth to a large lecture hall of students.  What follow are some reflections on what I have learned about teaching a large introductory class of political science in a way that also introduces them to some of the perennial questions that have defined Western civilization.

The instructor of such a class might assume the students possess some rudimentary knowledge of “civics” or what we call in my province, “social studies” (in Canada, education falls under the domain of the provinces.  The federal government has little to do with its funding, and nothing to do with its delivery).  But this assumption is too optimistic.  Instructors should never be surprised at the level of cultural illiteracy among students.  The last time I allowed myself to be surprised was when a third-year university student told me the reason she did not read the assigned book of Genesis was that she did not know what it is and therefore could not find it.

When I was a graduate student in the United States, I was always a bit puzzled that American undergraduates got their introduction to political science in the form of an introductory class in American politics.  Certainly it’s a bit parochial to identify all of political science with the study of American politics.  And I certainly witnessed the parochial manner in which that class could be taught.  However, having spent the last decade trying to teach an introduction to political science class to my Canadian students, I’ve come to see there is a bit of wisdom in the American approach.  If its disadvantage is that it is somewhat parochial because it focuses on a single regime to introduce an academic field, the disadvantage of the approach in Canadian universities is that the non-regime specific introduction to political science tries to cover too much and in an abstract manner.

It is easier to use the United States than Canada (and most other countries) as a vehicle for introducing politics because it has a rich tradition of reflecting upon political principles (the subfield of political philosophy), designing political institutions, and engaging in international affairs.  Canada, for its part, lacks an equivalent to the Federalist Papers so it is more difficult to enter into discussions of political philosophy.  Moreover, while Canada once had a rich tradition of participation in international affairs (and is slowly resurrecting that tradition), treating Canada as a world historic state that can teach general lessons in international relations is to indulge in comedy. Just think of comedies that lampoon small town vanity and self-importance.  Canadian political scientists, for good reason, simply cannot take their regime seriously enough to treat it as a case study that stands in for all of political science.

The greatest challenge teaching an introduction to political science class is that the knowledge one wishes to convey must give students a flavor of the many things political scientists study (e.g., politics of specific nation-states, international relations, political philosophy, judiciary, law, etc.) without sacrificing too much depth.  The instructor needs to first-year students a taste that entices them to seek more at more senior levels.  After all, part of the job of the instructor is to convince students they should major in political science.  However, what usually ends up happening is that the instructor covers a different topic per day, which frustrates students because they’re given an enticing glimpse and then must move to the next day’s task.  Even worse, such an approach leaves students drowning in a sea of information that is difficult for them to organize and to determine which is most significant.

When I started my first job, I was encouraged to teach the introduction to political science with a textbook.  There are several introductory textbooks on the market.  The one I ended up using for several years does its job very well.  However, it is limited by the fact it is a textbook.  Its chapters cover everything from the different ideologies (but no political philosophy), different institutions (e.g., judiciary, legislatures, etc.), and political actors (e.g., interest groups).  The textbook contains a wealth of information, and, unlike others on the market, avoids reducing politics to ideological ax-grinding.  However, like most other textbooks, it fails to provide students with a standard of judging the significance of the details. It fails to provide a narrative of what politics is about and that could enable them to see what the various ideologies, institutions, and political actors were all trying to accomplish.

In the subsequent years I tried to fill the gaps by assigning supplementary readings.  Some years I assigned pivotal essays by figures like Leo Strauss who could address fundamental questions of political science.  Other years I assigned readings that addressed contemporary political issues, and that enabled students to see how the concepts they learned in the textbooks play out in real life.

However, all those approaches fell short of my desired goal.  The “big picture” essays did not integrate well with the myriad of details in the textbook. The articles on contemporary issues were more popular, but it was difficult for students to move beyond the details of the textbooks.  They could see concepts in action in contemporary affairs, but they lacked a big picture “hook” upon which to hang those affairs and concepts.

Finally, I abandoned the use of textbooks.  Instead, for the past couple of years I have adopted what I call a “Great Books” approach to introducing political science.  Instead of assigning a textbook with a wealth of information, I assign a “classic” text from each of the four subfields in political science:  political philosophy, Canadian politics (which would be U.S. politics in the U.S.), international relations, and comparative politics.  Instead of getting introduced to political science with a waterfall of textbook information, the students read accessible “classics” of the field to learn what it means to think about politics.  To borrow a formulation of Michael Oakeshott, they gain information, but, more importantly, they gain judgment.  Of course, along the way they learn necessary information about justice, international law, responsible government, and so forth.  However, they learn to integrate that technical knowledge into a whole.  The other advantage is that they still receive an introduction to the discipline, and not to a specific regime, though not one as overly generalized as the textbook approach.

Even so, the students need a way of seeing a thread among those subfields.  It is insufficient to get a handle on Canadian politics or international relations as separate subfields.  They need to come out of the class with a basic question of what politics is as a distinctly human activity.  I have found that before entering into the subfields, it is helpful to assign a reading that opens up some fundamental questions about politics.  The assigned readings for the political philosophy section usually do this.  First-year students find Plato’s Apology of Socrates or J. S. Mill’s “On Liberty” both appealing and accessible, and they open up important political questions that they can pursue in various ways in the readings for the other subfields.

However, I usually like to start the class with a work of literature.  For example, for the past couple of years I have assigned Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World.  In a subsequent post, I shall explain how I use Brave New World to “unify” my introductory political science class.  In future subsequent posts, I shall explain the other readings.  I also intend to post my course syllabus to illustrate this approach (and I hope readers will suggest ways I can improve my introductory class).

Also see “What is Politics?” “Political Philosophy,” “Canadian Politics,” “International Politics,” “Comparative Politics,” and “Big Questions for Contemporary Politics.”

Print