Rethinking the Canon: How to Teach Classic Texts in the Contemporary Academy

Session Submission Type: Roundtable

Session Description

Provisional Participants:
Richard T. Ashcroft, Political Science and Political Economy, UC Berkeley
Angus Burgin, Glory Liu, Simon Halliday, Moral and Political Economy, Johns Hopkins
Shannon Stimson, Government, Georgetown
Samuel Goldman, Political Science, George Washington University
Kristen Collins, PPE, George Mason University

The western canon of political thought is a mainstay of political science education in Anglophone countries. Classic texts from the ancient and medieval period by Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Augustine are taught alongside thinkers from the early modern and modern period such as Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Wollstonecraft, Mill, Hegel, Marx and Weber. In recent years, however, scholars have begun to question whether these canonical texts need to be supplemented (or even replaced) with thinkers or texts not usually considered canonical, including—but certainly not limited to—Confucius, Mencius, The Laws of Manu, The Arthashastra, Ibn Khaldun, Ibn Sina, Gandhi, Garvey, Du Bois, Goldman, and Fanon.

The questioning of the traditional canon has arisen for several reasons. We now have a greater awareness of the enduring legacies of racism, sexism and colonialism across the world, and in the academy itself. There is widespread agreement that a central part of teaching and scholarship is to address these legacies, and that different texts and thinkers will help foreground issues and perspectives historically excluded from the mainstream. In addition, scholars are increasingly studying the process of “canonization” itself in an attempt to understand precisely why some thinkers/texts receive that status, and how these thinkers/texts—and their subsequent (re)interpretation—have contributed to the forms of exclusion we are trying to address. Relatedly, the student body within the modern academy is much more diverse than previously, and students are legitimately asking why it is that they must study a canon that is not reflective of their disparate identities and experiences. It therefore seems clear that the teaching of political science must revisit canonical political thought if it is to remain engaged with contemporary scholarship, students and social issues.

While there is widespread agreement on the problem, we have not yet settled on the right response. There would seem to be several possible approaches, all of which contain promise. For example, should we simply abandon the canon in favor of a more eclectic approach to teaching political thought? If so, what is the trade-off between greater inclusiveness and intellectual coherency? Should we self-consciously remake the canon of political thought by adding particular thinkers/texts to stand alongside the material traditionally taught? If so, how do we decide upon these additions, and should we be constrained by the historical period covered by the original canon, or should we introduce more modern thinkers alongside older texts?
If we introduce newer texts, should these engage directly with the canonical texts they are juxtaposed to—perhaps through critique or reinterpretation—or should they focus on issues and ideas beyond the imagination of traditional thinkers? Of course, this still leaves open what sort of texts could be added to the canon. Are we limited to philosophical or academic texts, or should we include different sorts of writing, such as plays, novels, court cases, and public-facing political writing?

Alternatively, we might teach the existing canon largely as it is, but construct an “alternative” canon to act as a counterpoint to—and implicit critique of—the traditional approach. Or perhaps we could “reframe” the western canon within a much broader set of political and cultural traditions, and thereby draw attention to the elision of the influence of non-western perspectives upon the canon from which they are excluded. Finally, is it possible to combine elements of all these approaches, perhaps by thinking in terms of multiple canons not a singular canon, and what are the costs and benefits of doing so?

These different ideas are only tentative suggestions. No doubt there are legion other ways of rethinking canonical political thought that have not occurred members of this panel, in part because of our disciplinary, institutional and personal biases. We would therefore like to treat this roundtable as an invitation to explore the ways we can reimagine the canon, and to have the opportunity to learn from the diverse experiences of our colleagues in political science as they grapple with this issue. We would therefore hope this roundtable will build on the work at this conference on internationalizing and decolonizing the curriculum in political science, and lead to fruitful collaborations in teaching and learning going forward.

Sub Unit

• Roundtables

Chair

• Richard T. Ashcroft University of California, Berkeley

Presenters

• Kristen R. Collins George Mason University

• Samuel Goldman George Washington University

• Glory M. Liu Georgetown University