Political Science Educator: volume 28, issue 2
Reflections
By Adam Fusco (adam.fusco@york.ac.uk)
Political philosophy often forms an integral part of curricula on many Politics degrees. Yet teaching political philosophy poses specific pedagogical challenges in Politics departments. Student perceptions of what is entailed in a Politics degree often does not include political philosophy prior to study. Moreover, once students have embarked upon their degree, many find it difficult to engage with political philosophy due to its distinct approach in comparison to other modes of studying Politics. Many students, therefore, begin their degrees expecting a different subject matter, often with no prior training, personal exposure, or pre-existing interest in political philosophy.
To include students on equal terms with those with an interest and training, I utilize the method of public philosophy in my teaching. While the term public philosophy is contested, here I mean teaching that forefronts student discussion of social and political issues with pertinent cases and examples, rather than placing theory and text first. Public philosophy curates student intuitions and arguments, which are then related, when necessary, to scholarship.
Given these conditions, I argue traditional methods of teaching political philosophy often have limited and counter-productive use. By traditional methods I am not referring to any specific approach, but only approaches that begin teaching from theory, as philosophy teaching includes its own range of pedagogical methods (Cahn 2018). As a theoretical discipline, philosophy is concerned with the construction and coherence of theories. Therefore, what is often emphasized in teaching is the architecture of a theory, and theories are assessed for their coherence.
For students of Politics this can be doubly bewildering. First, they are being asked to acquire a different methodological language from empirical political science (Moore 2015). Second, traditional approaches see theory as the object of study rather than a ‘tool’ to illuminate difficult political questions (Dewey 2008, 164). As a result, students can become demotivated, disengaged, and treat the subject as something to tolerate until it is no longer a requirement of their degree. Public philosophy, by contrast, addresses these problems with an issue-based approach to teaching. It narrows the gap with empirical studies through its case-based approach, and crucially aligns with the parts of political science that view theory as instrumental to the illumination of political questions (Waldron 2016).
The term public philosophy refers to a range of activities in academic scholarship. While no means exclusive of each other, four main conceptions pertain:
- First, as an applied form of philosophy. This refers to the philosophical treatment of issues of public concern, such as public policy matters – for example, taxation or climate change. Public philosophy, in this sense, involves the investigation of subject matters of public concern, using the resources of philosophy (e.g. Wolff 2020) and dovetails considerably with the Weberian claim that the social sciences should study what is of value to society. While its work is justified in relation to matters of public interest beyond the academy, and is ideally disseminated beyond it too, applied public philosophy nevertheless takes place within this setting by academics.
- Second, as a form of public engagement. This involves taking philosophy out of the academy into public settings. This type of engagement functions to create appreciation of the merits of philosophy among the public, and to inform it of academic philosophical research (Pigliucci and Finkelman 2014). Prominent examples include the programmes of the academic Michael Sandel, or the UK podcasts In our Time and Philosophy Bites.
- Third, as a resource to narrate public life. This is for scholars and others to articulate and impart a language of values and concepts which can be drawn upon in public life to navigate complex and sometimes controversial social and political issues (e.g. Sandel 1998). This sometimes involves publics applying philosophical concepts as solutions to problems which are of concern to them and their community (Sandel 2006).
- Fourth, as a method of practicing philosophy itself. Rather than seeing knowledge as something that can only be appropriately constructed apart from the distortions of public life, public philosophy, in this sense, contends that knowledge is publicly constructible (Habermas 1984; Tully 2008). Complementing the tradition of pragmatism in philosophy and the constructivist approaches to pedagogy, it presents the idea that publics can engage in the practice of philosophy and problem-solve without prior resources and theories, when provided with appropriate fora and facilitation.
But how useful are these in teaching political philosophy to students of political science?
The first – as applied philosophy – is an approach that is promising and limiting in equal regard. In terms of limitations, it is an idea of public philosophy that is for the public but does not include the public. As a pedagogical practice it requires students to accommodate themselves to the academic practice of philosophy, and not philosophy to students. However, due to its subject matter, the gap between it, empirical studies, and existing student knowledge and interest is often narrower. Therefore, although it may not offer resources to deal with the challenge of Politics students’ acquisition of another methodological language, it does offer resources to refocus the object of philosophical study away from the architecture of theory to cases and examples that are likely familiar and intuitive to Politics students (Waldron 2016, 13-16).
The second, public philosophy as public engagement, largely replicates the limits and merits of public philosophy as applied philosophy. Although public philosophy as engagement forefronts to a much greater extent the public in contrast to applied public philosophy, it also excludes publics from the work of philosophy itself. Publics remain passive recipients of academic knowledge (Tully 2008, 21-24). Critics of public philosophy as engagement have worried that this idea requires a dumbing down of complex ideas in research presented to publics and is in fact only really a form of ‘entertainment’ (Weinstein 2014). While methodologically limited in the same respect as applied public philosophy, public philosophy as engagement does what it intends – engage publics, and by extension students. It therefore offers a valuable pedagogical resource, most likely effective when coupled with an applied subject matter, to help students develop an interest in political philosophy, where one did not exist before (Pigliucci and Finkleman 2014, 95-99).
The third view, as a resource to narrate public life, departs from the previous conceptions in offering pedagogical resources for the teaching of political philosophy. When understood as a resource to narrate public life, public philosophy attempts to provide languages and philosophical resources that publics can adopt to problem-solve, particularly when problems appear insoluble and pre-existing languages fail to capture the concerns or dynamics of a political problem in appropriate registers (Tully 2008, 160-164). This requires publics to be active participants in the application of philosophical ideas. As a pedagogy it requires students to actively learn through a process of application. However, this view is also limited in that the philosophical resources which students are asked to apply are still largely distinct from the problems they are examining and constitute a metaphorical menu of options which pre-exist the problems under consideration. This requires students at an early point in their learning to acquire independent and discrete knowledge of philosophical theories. This runs the risk of alienating students from the subject early on. The pedagogy of public philosophy as a resource to narrate public life perhaps represents the ultimate destination of student learning: that students can understand and successfully apply theories to offer solutions to political problems, but its effectiveness lies downstream in their learning.
The fourth conception, as a method of practicing philosophy, provides the most promising pedagogy for teaching students of political science. As with the previous views, it begins with social and political problems that are familiar and intuitive to students who have no prior exposure or interest in philosophy. However, in comparison to public philosophy as a resource to narrate public life, it does not begin by asking students to apply existing political theories to problems. Instead, it encourages students to construct their own solutions to problems through teachers’ facilitation and questioning (Miettinen 2000, 66-67). Topics with some political controversy or problem are selected and facilitators are tasked with asking open-ended questions about what should be done. Teachers encourage participation from students, and curate their responses to map the discussion and encourage the refinement of arguments. If necessary, the facilitator also offers responses to student thoughts and arguments for the same effect (Culbertson 2020). This may in fact be a process of students deducing the same or similar solutions as those proposed in academic literatures. While encouraging active learning, this method of public philosophy encourages a deeper form of learning with students fully understanding theoretical positions by formulating them themselves.
Each conception of public philosophy has its pedagogical merits for Politics Science students. Each help bridge the gap between philosophy and empirical approaches to political inquiry, making Politics curricula hang together as a coherent and complementary whole in the minds of students. It is unlikely, however, that any conception realises this alone. Consideration is essential, therefore, of how each conception should be combined and effectively utilised, particularly at the various stages of students’ teaching and learning.
References
Cahn, Steven M. 2018. Teaching Philosophy. London: Routledge.
Culbertson, Kristin. 2020. “Teaching Philosophy to Non-Majors as a Form of Public Philosophy.” Public Philosophy Journal 3(2). https://doi.org/10.48413/ppj.3.2-02.
Dewey, John. 2008 [1920]. “Reconstruction in Philosophy.” In The Middle Works of John Dewey 1889–1924, ed. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Habermas, Jürgen. 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume I. Trans. Thomas McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press.
Miettinen, Reijo. 2000. “The Concept of Experiential Learning and John Dewey’s Theory of Reflective Thought and Action.” International Journal of Lifelong Education 19(1): 54–72.
Moore, Matthew J. 2015. “Teaching Political Theory.” In Handbook on Teaching and Learning in Political Science and International Relations, ed. John Ishiyama, William J. Miller, and Eszter Simon. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Pigliucci, Massimo, and Leonard Finkelman. 2014. “The Value of Public Philosophy to Philosophers.” Essays in Philosophy 15(1): 86–102.
Sandel, Michael. 1998. Democracy’s Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sandel, Michael. 2006. Public Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Tully, James. 2008. Public Philosophy in a New Key, Volume One. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Waldron, Jeremy. 2016. Political Political Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Weinstein, Jack Russell. 2014. “What Does Public Philosophy Do? (Hint: It Does Not Make Better Citizens).” Essays in Philosophy 15(1): 33–57.
Wolff, Jonathan. 2020. Ethics and Public Policy. London: Routledge.
—-
Adam Fusco teaches political philosophy and intellectual history at the Department of Politics and International Relations in the University of York (UK). In addition to his interests in pedagogy, Adam has published on topics including the role of political ideas in the Northern Ireland Troubles in outlets including the journal Nations and Nationalism.
Published since 2005, The Political Science Educator is the newsletter of the Political Science Education Section of the American Political Science Association. As part of APSA’s mission to support political science education across the discipline, APSA Educate has republished The Political Science Educator since 2021. Please visit APSA Educate’s Political Science Educator digital collection here.
Editors: Colin Brown (Northeastern University), Matt Evans (Northwest Arkansas Community College)
Submissions: editor.PSE.newsletter@gmail.com
