I'm thinking about dumping Polanyi.
It's not that I dislike the book. And I don't get into the economists' debate about whether he over-romanticizes "primitive" reciprocal trading networks over self-regulating markets. It isn't even that I find the detailed discussion of Speenhamland and the Corn Laws dull.
OK, I find those to be a bit dull.
The main problem I have with Polanyi is that I don't think my students read it. And when they do read it, I don't think they really get it.
The bright ones of you are thinking right now, "But that is what lecture and discussion is for!"
Quite right, except when I lecture before they are supposed to do the readings, then they don't read it, assuming they know what I find to be important. Now, this isn't universal, and there are generally a couple of PhD students and maybe a future PhD track MA student who will dive in, but the majority could care less.
This is one of those battles that I always have with myself, and that I think most teachers also have, about how to balance one's own expectations with what the market will bear. It comes down to my ideas about what is appropriate for a doctoral level course and what I think the students are capable of versus the abilities of those students and whether or not they choose to engage them. I've tried to resist the temptation to give in, to dumb down, and to adopt the opinion held by a lot of professors that students are lazy, undisciplined, unengaged with the material and content to get by without challenging themselves. Part of the problem is that we have a dearth of theory courses to prepare them to think about big questions, and that in their preparation "methods" are privileged over - nearly to the exclusion of - broad historical analysis. Plus, because we offer so few courses, we mix first year MA students in with more advanced PhD students, creating a wild mix of advanced discussion and remedial political economy. If that wasn't enough, I have to jam in IPE and CPE and PED in one semester.
Hence the dilemma about Polanyi, and whether the book's costs of time, difficulty, and the intangible "groan factor" are worth the benefit of a spending the time on a great piece of historical political economy that not only does a fantastic job of unraveling the evolution of the modern market system, but that also shows the students the embeddedness of markets in political and social systems, and why political economy is a key part of the field of international relations.
Thoughts?
Posted by binky at June 24, 2006 09:42 AM | TrackBack | Posted to Economics | The AcademyI've had a similar problem with Alex Wendt's book. When I read it I (rightly) thought 1) ok, this is going to define how IR scholars in the US look at constructivism and 2) that's too bad, b/c most of my students aren't going to understand it. So I've never assigned that text in my Theory seminar (Christina is assigning it this fall so I'll be interested to hear how that goes).
Now that said, there's obviously a difference between a text defining discussions in this country on a subject and me 1) liking it (and yikes is the writing of that book bad, the prose I mean) and 2) thinking it really presents constructivist thought at a whole (which of course it doesn't). So since I have some problems with it I don't feel too bad about not including it on the syllabus though I'm sure many in the discipline would say I should.
From your discussions about Polanyi over the last few years I think you think it's 1) more vital to your students' understanding and 2) lacking of obvious replacements for getting the ideas across than I judge the Wendt book to be. So maybe you shouldn't drop it. Then again I know how frustrating it is to teach texts you think some students just won't get.
To conclude - I suppose I'd just say that for me the question comes down to how vital is it for the students - how key is it to their understanding of the central themes of the course. If it's that important, they should have to suffer through it. And if they don't "get it" - maybe they shouldn't get through comps.
Posted by: Armand at June 24, 2006 10:38 AM | PERMALINKWell, maybe they shouldn't get through comps, but the last time I had that opinion about someone's IPE exam, the decision to pass was conventiently made without consulting me about my vote, which I found out upon asking the committee chair when the oral would give the student a chance to address the awful written IPE answers. So, in the larger picture, I think the overall view is that IPE is not important. Which makes me think, it's not worth struggling through the groans, if no one (read: powers that be) really cares anyway.
I wish our new colleague luck in getting them through Wendt.
Posted by: binky at June 24, 2006 10:52 AM | PERMALINK