Both Fred Halliday and Weber's pieces were about teaching international relations and the conflicts that can arise. Weber describes as a teacher rather than a "leader" even though students may look to a Professor in this way. A Professor is supposed to allow ourselves to come up with our own opinions and perceptiosn but equip us with the information necessary. However, is this "information" skewed in some way that may have a tendency to lean more one way than the other?
There are different ways to look at the field of International Relations, as discussed by Halliday. If we take a scientific viewpoint, perhaps things are black and white, but with post-modernism, what's reality is grey, because it welcomes a "multiplicity of viewpoints". So then, how can a professor teach to initiate discussion in way that welcomes all viewpoints so as not to preach a certain idea or perspective?
I think it's interesting how Weber looks to teaching "inconvenient" facts so that a student understands the entire picture and separating what is inconvenient to them and forming their own perspective. Whether the facts that are separated from their viewpoint distorts reality is another concern, but the job of the professor are to provide all the facts and not to preach one's perspective upon others. According to Weber, a teacher is a "teacher" not a "leader" and those roles need to be separated in order to provide an "ethical"-type of education for one's students.
Who determines whether all the "inconvenient" facts are provided? Who knows.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment