By Anonymous, Jun 29, 2009 in Musings, Questions, Pedagogy and Teaching
A methodological gulf exists among disciplines. Political Science and Philosophy rarely discuss context while to Historians (of which I'm one) context is our shibboleth. Because of my training, I find it difficult to fully engage in discussions with both academics and students on these non-contextual issues. In fact, in these discussions I am reminded of the great quip by John Adams: "Facts are stubborn things." My question/concern is, therefore, how can conservative scholars bridge this gap and introduce into our classrooms both context and, for those of us who toil in the fields of events, transcendent issues? Is there a way? Let me add, too, that I struggle with this myself as I believe in a transcendent moral order but think it is necessary—perhaps to an absolute degree—to know the context of events that shapes the debate on this question/answer.
3 Responses to "Context vs. Transcendence"
Anonymous on Jun 29, 2009
The gulf is not nearly as wide as you suggest. True, at the ISI Summer Institute there will be fewer political theorists who approach the history of ideas as historians, but they occupy a good part of the discipline. I taught a graduate seminar last year on the methods of political theory; the contrast I describe here is between the "Chicago School" and the "Cambridge" school. Most of us fall somewhere in the middle of these two camps.
Aaron Nathaniel Coleman on Jun 29, 2009
You are probably right, Richard. I think I may have drawn the line to tight. Yet, there does seem to be some natural tension between these approaches. I must confess more affinity for the Cambridge school of Skinner, Pocock, etc. The real effort, as you suggest, is finding that solid middle ground. When working with events and trying to explain those events, that middle ground can be a bit elusive.
Lee Trepanier on Jul 11, 2009
With respect to students, I find that drawing the theoretical import from the study of a specific event in a historical context to be very successful. It seems that students' minds (at least American students' minds) operate first wtih the empirical and then, with the professor's help, rise to the theoretical. Over the course of time, students can see how the theoretical has changed as related to contextual events. For example, the study of how our notion of equality has changed over time in the American regime requires us to study the specific events first.e.g., slavery, Civil War, Reconstruction, and then what principles emerge from these events.
With academics, I think the main problem is just trying to get them to listen. Academics tend to think their specialization explains everything, so there is no need to listen to anyone else, esp. if they are outside their field. I think we're all guilty of this and should try listen to our colleagues more, particularly those outside our field.