Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/10457097.2022.2140000
B. Frost
Abstract This new and penetrating book offers perhaps the first sustained discussion of themes not usually associated with Leo Strauss, namely democracy, technology, and liberal education. Through the use of published and unpublished sources, Timothy W. Burns reveals that Strauss was deeply immersed in and concerned with all three themes and their interconnectedness. This is especially true when it comes to modern technology and the modern, Enlightenment project.
这本新颖而深刻的书提供了可能是第一次持续讨论通常与利奥·施特劳斯无关的主题，即民主，技术和自由教育。蒂莫西·w·伯恩斯(Timothy W. Burns)通过使用已发表和未发表的资料，揭示了施特劳斯深深沉浸在并关注这三个主题及其相互联系。当涉及到现代技术和现代启蒙运动时，这一点尤其正确。
{"title":"Leo Strauss on Reform in the Era of Technological Democracy","authors":"B. Frost","doi":"10.1080/10457097.2022.2140000","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10457097.2022.2140000","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This new and penetrating book offers perhaps the first sustained discussion of themes not usually associated with Leo Strauss, namely democracy, technology, and liberal education. Through the use of published and unpublished sources, Timothy W. Burns reveals that Strauss was deeply immersed in and concerned with all three themes and their interconnectedness. This is especially true when it comes to modern technology and the modern, Enlightenment project.","PeriodicalId":55874,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Political Science","volume":"52 1","pages":"2 - 6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41618146","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/10457097.2022.2140001
I. Macfarlane
Abstract Tim Burns’ Leo Strauss on Democracy, Technology, and Liberal Education presents a new dimension of Leo Strauss’ treatment of liberal education. Namely, he shows that for Strauss liberal education meant not only liberation from conventional opinions, but also, especially in modernity, a reawakening of a gentlemanly moral seriousness, which both supports political life and provides a foundation for a philosophic education in the strict sense. In this essay, I articulate the key features of Burns’ argument and raise critical questions about his picture of this kind of liberal education in the modern world.
{"title":"Liberal Education as the Recovery of Classical Moral and Political Reasoning","authors":"I. Macfarlane","doi":"10.1080/10457097.2022.2140001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10457097.2022.2140001","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Tim Burns’ Leo Strauss on Democracy, Technology, and Liberal Education presents a new dimension of Leo Strauss’ treatment of liberal education. Namely, he shows that for Strauss liberal education meant not only liberation from conventional opinions, but also, especially in modernity, a reawakening of a gentlemanly moral seriousness, which both supports political life and provides a foundation for a philosophic education in the strict sense. In this essay, I articulate the key features of Burns’ argument and raise critical questions about his picture of this kind of liberal education in the modern world.","PeriodicalId":55874,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Political Science","volume":"52 1","pages":"7 - 10"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49653548","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.4324/9780203079188-16
James R. Stoner
Timothy W. Burns’s Leo Strauss on Democracy, Technology, and Liberal Education is an extraordinary scholarly achievement. Burns offers a lucid and wide-ranging exploration of Strauss’s political philosophy based on an extensive and intimate knowledge not only of Strauss’s voluminous scholarly writing— which itself is difficult, because most of what Strauss wrote supposes extensive and intimate knowledge of the whole canon of political philosophy—but also of much of Strauss’s unpublished work, especially lectures whose typescripts remain among his papers, as well as transcripts of classes, letters, and other notes. Let me raise a preliminary question about this before turning to Burns’s interpretation itself. Recourse to unpublished works is a curious strategy, particularly reliance on unpublished versions of lectures that were later revised and published. Ordinarily one would think an author’s published works provided the most considered record of his thought, assuming he was not edited against his will. Is it that, because Strauss wrote about esoteric writing and was alert to the difference between speaking and writing, Burns believes his thought might be captured better in his lectures than in his publications, the latter of which were by definition exoteric? Would not the usual presumption be to give more authority to a published text—recognizing of course, as Strauss taught, the circumstances surrounding publication—than to a typescript that was never reworked or rewritten? If the lecture was rewritten, should not more authority be given to the finished version rather than the draft? As for his classes, Strauss surely knew they were being recorded, and while it is delightful to hear him teach, can we suppose his statements to a particular class instruct us better than his writings? Or is Burns’s point pedagogical rather than scientific, to help those of us who have read and reread Strauss’s published books and essays over a lifetime to think about him afresh? Turning from this question of methodology to Burns’s account of Strauss’s thought, he begins with a question of political science: How is it with our world today? What kind of politics do we observe and engage in? What is our regime, and is it good? The answer to the “what” question is “liberal democracy,” a regime founded by philosophers and so absent from Aristotle’s schema of natural forms. Would that Marx had been correct in that last thesis on Feuerbach, that philosophers had only interpreted the world, not tried to change it. Instead, since Machiavelli they have done the latter, and with great success, at least at first: transforming the face of the globe and focusing the attention of most men on worldly happiness. What Marx attributes to the bourgeoisie, Strauss attributes to their teachers. He does agree with Marx, it seems, that this has us hurtling toward catastrophe, and without Marx’s sanguine hope that all will be well after the revolution. Having observed the rise of Nazism
{"title":"Interpretation and Change","authors":"James R. Stoner","doi":"10.4324/9780203079188-16","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203079188-16","url":null,"abstract":"Timothy W. Burns’s Leo Strauss on Democracy, Technology, and Liberal Education is an extraordinary scholarly achievement. Burns offers a lucid and wide-ranging exploration of Strauss’s political philosophy based on an extensive and intimate knowledge not only of Strauss’s voluminous scholarly writing— which itself is difficult, because most of what Strauss wrote supposes extensive and intimate knowledge of the whole canon of political philosophy—but also of much of Strauss’s unpublished work, especially lectures whose typescripts remain among his papers, as well as transcripts of classes, letters, and other notes. Let me raise a preliminary question about this before turning to Burns’s interpretation itself. Recourse to unpublished works is a curious strategy, particularly reliance on unpublished versions of lectures that were later revised and published. Ordinarily one would think an author’s published works provided the most considered record of his thought, assuming he was not edited against his will. Is it that, because Strauss wrote about esoteric writing and was alert to the difference between speaking and writing, Burns believes his thought might be captured better in his lectures than in his publications, the latter of which were by definition exoteric? Would not the usual presumption be to give more authority to a published text—recognizing of course, as Strauss taught, the circumstances surrounding publication—than to a typescript that was never reworked or rewritten? If the lecture was rewritten, should not more authority be given to the finished version rather than the draft? As for his classes, Strauss surely knew they were being recorded, and while it is delightful to hear him teach, can we suppose his statements to a particular class instruct us better than his writings? Or is Burns’s point pedagogical rather than scientific, to help those of us who have read and reread Strauss’s published books and essays over a lifetime to think about him afresh? Turning from this question of methodology to Burns’s account of Strauss’s thought, he begins with a question of political science: How is it with our world today? What kind of politics do we observe and engage in? What is our regime, and is it good? The answer to the “what” question is “liberal democracy,” a regime founded by philosophers and so absent from Aristotle’s schema of natural forms. Would that Marx had been correct in that last thesis on Feuerbach, that philosophers had only interpreted the world, not tried to change it. Instead, since Machiavelli they have done the latter, and with great success, at least at first: transforming the face of the globe and focusing the attention of most men on worldly happiness. What Marx attributes to the bourgeoisie, Strauss attributes to their teachers. He does agree with Marx, it seems, that this has us hurtling toward catastrophe, and without Marx’s sanguine hope that all will be well after the revolution. Having observed the rise of Nazism","PeriodicalId":55874,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Political Science","volume":"52 1","pages":"15 - 16"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48531566","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-02DOI: 10.1080/10457097.2022.2121116
Aaron L. Herold
Abstract The thread uniting the preceding four essays concerns the place of statesmanship within a modern world characterized by mass politics, impersonal forces, and the simultaneous emancipation and denigration of the democratic soul. In this brief response, I consider the capacity of statesmanship to encourage political prudence and moderation today. Noting the importance of the disagreement between Spinoza and Tocqueville for helping us understand this problem, I describe Tocqueville’s acuity in articulating its peculiar dimensions, but I also highlight the importance for today’s liberalism of Spinoza’s defense of reason.
{"title":"Statesmanship in Modern Times","authors":"Aaron L. Herold","doi":"10.1080/10457097.2022.2121116","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10457097.2022.2121116","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The thread uniting the preceding four essays concerns the place of statesmanship within a modern world characterized by mass politics, impersonal forces, and the simultaneous emancipation and denigration of the democratic soul. In this brief response, I consider the capacity of statesmanship to encourage political prudence and moderation today. Noting the importance of the disagreement between Spinoza and Tocqueville for helping us understand this problem, I describe Tocqueville’s acuity in articulating its peculiar dimensions, but I also highlight the importance for today’s liberalism of Spinoza’s defense of reason.","PeriodicalId":55874,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Political Science","volume":"51 1","pages":"185 - 189"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46737845","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-02DOI: 10.1080/10457097.2022.2121112
Samuel A. Stoner
Abstract This review essay explores Chapter One of Aaron Herold’s recent book, The Democratic Soul: Spinoza, Tocqueville, and Enlightenment Theology. After tracing out the logic of Herold’s reconstruction of “Spinoza’s Liberal Theology,” it suggests a Spinozistic rejoinder to the Tocquevillian critique of Spinoza that Herold develops in his book. Further, it raises the question of Spinoza’s understanding of the scope and character of the project of enlightenment that he envisions. Finally, it points toward a Tocquevillian critique of Spinoza’s liberal theology that Herold suggests but does not explicitly develop.
{"title":"Unaccommodating Spinoza’s Liberal Theology","authors":"Samuel A. Stoner","doi":"10.1080/10457097.2022.2121112","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10457097.2022.2121112","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This review essay explores Chapter One of Aaron Herold’s recent book, The Democratic Soul: Spinoza, Tocqueville, and Enlightenment Theology. After tracing out the logic of Herold’s reconstruction of “Spinoza’s Liberal Theology,” it suggests a Spinozistic rejoinder to the Tocquevillian critique of Spinoza that Herold develops in his book. Further, it raises the question of Spinoza’s understanding of the scope and character of the project of enlightenment that he envisions. Finally, it points toward a Tocquevillian critique of Spinoza’s liberal theology that Herold suggests but does not explicitly develop.","PeriodicalId":55874,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Political Science","volume":"51 1","pages":"173 - 175"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48991481","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-02DOI: 10.1080/10457097.2022.2121115
Vickie B. Sullivan
Abstract On Aaron Herold’s interpretation, Tocqueville understands that human beings long for a type of transcendence that cannot be satisfied merely by the earthly goods that liberalism promises. Herold finds Tocqueville writing artfully to attempt to return human beings to a deeper understanding of themselves, and in so doing, exercising a type of statesmanship in his writing. This review raises three questions regarding Herold’s presentation of Tocqueville: first, the degree to which noble self-sacrifice is embedded in the American tradition; second, the ultimate status of religious toleration as a moral good in Tocqueville’s thought; and third, Tocqueville’s view of the relation of religion and philosophy.
{"title":"Sickness and Remedy for the Modern Soul","authors":"Vickie B. Sullivan","doi":"10.1080/10457097.2022.2121115","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10457097.2022.2121115","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract On Aaron Herold’s interpretation, Tocqueville understands that human beings long for a type of transcendence that cannot be satisfied merely by the earthly goods that liberalism promises. Herold finds Tocqueville writing artfully to attempt to return human beings to a deeper understanding of themselves, and in so doing, exercising a type of statesmanship in his writing. This review raises three questions regarding Herold’s presentation of Tocqueville: first, the degree to which noble self-sacrifice is embedded in the American tradition; second, the ultimate status of religious toleration as a moral good in Tocqueville’s thought; and third, Tocqueville’s view of the relation of religion and philosophy.","PeriodicalId":55874,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Political Science","volume":"51 1","pages":"182 - 184"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44655878","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-02DOI: 10.1080/10457097.2022.2121114
Rachel K. Alexander
Abstract Herold’s rich treatment of Tocqueville reminds us of the powerful and indelible spiritual longings of the human soul, and the need for a statesmanship akin to Tocqueville’s own that understands both the nature of the soul and the character of the regime. In short, Herold’s Tocqueville helps us moderate our hopes for American liberal democracy without despairing that nothing can be done.
{"title":"Religious Statesmanship as Medicine for the Soul","authors":"Rachel K. Alexander","doi":"10.1080/10457097.2022.2121114","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10457097.2022.2121114","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Herold’s rich treatment of Tocqueville reminds us of the powerful and indelible spiritual longings of the human soul, and the need for a statesmanship akin to Tocqueville’s own that understands both the nature of the soul and the character of the regime. In short, Herold’s Tocqueville helps us moderate our hopes for American liberal democracy without despairing that nothing can be done.","PeriodicalId":55874,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Political Science","volume":"51 1","pages":"179 - 181"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44323628","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-02DOI: 10.1080/10457097.2022.2121111
Paul T. Wilford
{"title":"Introduction: Religion and Enlightenment in the Democratic Age","authors":"Paul T. Wilford","doi":"10.1080/10457097.2022.2121111","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10457097.2022.2121111","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":55874,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Political Science","volume":"51 1","pages":"171 - 172"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48983206","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-02DOI: 10.1080/10457097.2022.2121113
M. Hawley
Abstract The American Founding seems to reflect Spinozist principles, despite the fact that few of the Founders evince any real engagement with Spinoza’s ideas. I argue that the surface-level similarities between the American regime and Spinoza’s political ideal mask deep disagreements. The Lockeanism of the American Founding may in fact contain resources to ameliorate the crisis of modern liberal democracy that Spinoza would only intensify.
{"title":"Locke or Spinoza: Who’s better in a Crisis (of Modernity)?","authors":"M. Hawley","doi":"10.1080/10457097.2022.2121113","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10457097.2022.2121113","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The American Founding seems to reflect Spinozist principles, despite the fact that few of the Founders evince any real engagement with Spinoza’s ideas. I argue that the surface-level similarities between the American regime and Spinoza’s political ideal mask deep disagreements. The Lockeanism of the American Founding may in fact contain resources to ameliorate the crisis of modern liberal democracy that Spinoza would only intensify.","PeriodicalId":55874,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Political Science","volume":"51 1","pages":"176 - 178"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42151538","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-21DOI: 10.1080/10457097.2022.2123673
P. Myers
barriers created by the differences between previous and contemporary culture, between medieval religiosity and modern secularism, for instance. Montás is deeply concerned about the barriers that current students face to immersing themselves in liberal learning. This is why he so firmly emphasizes the role pedagogy plays in whether a student feels alienated from or invited into the beauty and power of these texts. To demonstrate this point, Montás describes his own experiences reading and teaching St. Augustine’s Confessions. As a student who had a formative encounter with Evangelicalism before his arrival at Columbia, Montás found in Augustine a deeply sincere seeker of the truth at a time in which he was desperate to understand his place in the world. Augustine’s embrace of the doctrine of original sin and the ways this surfaces in his discussion of human infancy did present impediments to Montás. However, these barriers differ from the obstacles most common among his own students. For undergraduates raised in a secular, post-modern, and often cynical age, it can be quite difficult to sympathize with an author “who lives with a vivid sense of God’s presence” or to “admit to a sincere longing for truth.” This is the kind of barrier Montás thinks we must overcome with deliberate pedagogy. For instance, he spends significant time drawing readers into Augustine’s “sensual and passionate personality,” pointing out the way in which his asceticism is not a shutting off, but an expansion. Hinting at links to future chapters on Freud and Gandhi, Austine’s asceticism is framed as enabling another kind of pleasure, “inner drama, adventure, and life-expanding discoveries” made possible by such a singular focus on knowing God. Part of what is so helpful about Montás’s “show rather than tell” approach is the positive vision of a flourishing liberal arts core curriculum he offers. Perhaps unsurprising coming from a program director and teacher, Montás suggests the path forward is in the teaching and the program design; he emphasizes the collaborative elements of the Columbia Core program in which faculty meet on a weekly basis to discuss how they will be treating the same texts. When changes to this common syllabus are considered, it is done in a highly democratic and collaborative process in which faculty propose and debate texts to be added or subtracted. As a result of such substantial faculty in-put, a new syllabus is usually soundly approved. Montás’s model for collaborative teaching and learning serves as a welcome rallying call in a sometimes isolating and individualistic academy. Having highlighted these more practical insights offered in Rescuing Socrates, readers should be advised: to absorb the full value of Montás’s narrative approach, I can only recommend that faculty, administrators, and the public read it! It is a joy to do so.
{"title":"His Greatest Speeches: How Lincoln Moved the Nation","authors":"P. Myers","doi":"10.1080/10457097.2022.2123673","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10457097.2022.2123673","url":null,"abstract":"barriers created by the differences between previous and contemporary culture, between medieval religiosity and modern secularism, for instance. Montás is deeply concerned about the barriers that current students face to immersing themselves in liberal learning. This is why he so firmly emphasizes the role pedagogy plays in whether a student feels alienated from or invited into the beauty and power of these texts. To demonstrate this point, Montás describes his own experiences reading and teaching St. Augustine’s Confessions. As a student who had a formative encounter with Evangelicalism before his arrival at Columbia, Montás found in Augustine a deeply sincere seeker of the truth at a time in which he was desperate to understand his place in the world. Augustine’s embrace of the doctrine of original sin and the ways this surfaces in his discussion of human infancy did present impediments to Montás. However, these barriers differ from the obstacles most common among his own students. For undergraduates raised in a secular, post-modern, and often cynical age, it can be quite difficult to sympathize with an author “who lives with a vivid sense of God’s presence” or to “admit to a sincere longing for truth.” This is the kind of barrier Montás thinks we must overcome with deliberate pedagogy. For instance, he spends significant time drawing readers into Augustine’s “sensual and passionate personality,” pointing out the way in which his asceticism is not a shutting off, but an expansion. Hinting at links to future chapters on Freud and Gandhi, Austine’s asceticism is framed as enabling another kind of pleasure, “inner drama, adventure, and life-expanding discoveries” made possible by such a singular focus on knowing God. Part of what is so helpful about Montás’s “show rather than tell” approach is the positive vision of a flourishing liberal arts core curriculum he offers. Perhaps unsurprising coming from a program director and teacher, Montás suggests the path forward is in the teaching and the program design; he emphasizes the collaborative elements of the Columbia Core program in which faculty meet on a weekly basis to discuss how they will be treating the same texts. When changes to this common syllabus are considered, it is done in a highly democratic and collaborative process in which faculty propose and debate texts to be added or subtracted. As a result of such substantial faculty in-put, a new syllabus is usually soundly approved. Montás’s model for collaborative teaching and learning serves as a welcome rallying call in a sometimes isolating and individualistic academy. Having highlighted these more practical insights offered in Rescuing Socrates, readers should be advised: to absorb the full value of Montás’s narrative approach, I can only recommend that faculty, administrators, and the public read it! It is a joy to do so.","PeriodicalId":55874,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Political Science","volume":"51 1","pages":"208 - 212"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47799755","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：