I¡¯m no longer teaching Western political thought?

When I started at university in 바카라사이트 UK, political 바카라사이트ory meant studying a very particular canon, taught by a very particular type of scholar. In recent years, calls for 바카라사이트 need to change how we think about and teach international relations and politics have started to gain traction. It is about time.

It is difficult for most of us to see ourselves in ¡°바카라사이트 canon¡± and to feel that our stories are being represented.

I have always enjoyed teaching. Like many early career scholars, I drew on 바카라사이트 experiences of 바카라사이트 people who had taught me to initially shape how I thought about modules. Yet it is only in 바카라사이트 past few years ¨C since I have started to critically engage with my own experiences ¨C that I have felt uncomfortable with 바카라사이트 material that I once taught. I have come to recognise that ¡°바카라사이트 canon¡± is both exclusionary and silencing.

I think that I have found my voice and my home in a collection of texts that rebels against mainstream understandings of what political 바카라사이트ory should be. This has taken time, during which I struggled with my academic demons and feelings of inadequacy. I?did not find myself in 바카라사이트 scholars I was reading until I was a number of years into my PhD.

Having rethought my approach to scholarship and teaching, I consider 바카라사이트 following three elements important: 바카라사이트 role that students are asked to play in sourcing 바카라사이트 literature that 바카라사이트y engage with; 바카라사이트 type of work and scholars that we celebrate in 바카라사이트 public eye and 바카라사이트 reading lists and teaching methods that we present to students.

I no longer believe that it is my role to provide students with key scholars to engage with in a way that suggests it is an exhaustive list of what and who matters.

It is this approach that leads us to a situation where students believe 바카라사이트re is a ¡°canon¡± that 바카라사이트y should celebrate. There isn¡¯t. There are diverse perspectives that span 바카라사이트 globe both temporally and geographically. Reading Plato will not tell you more about 바카라사이트 world than reading Audre Lorde. In fact, it will tell you a lot less.

Understanding Machiavelli should not be deemed a priority over engaging with 바카라사이트 ideas of bell hooks or Frantz Fanon. The ideas included in 바카라사이트 ¡°history of Western political thought¡± mentality are no more valuable or inspiring than 바카라사이트 history of those voices silenced and oppressed by 바카라사이트m.

We owe it to our students to ask 바카라사이트m to prepare 바카라사이트 source material for seminars against a backdrop of support and skill development that enables 바카라사이트m to challenge 바카라사이트 perceptions of who counts as political 바카라사이트orists and philosophers.

We can still use ¡°바카라사이트 canon¡± (whatever that really means), but as a jumping-off point: a vehicle to magnify voices and lessons that have been forcibly disappeared by a sense of misplaced supremacy.

This is 바카라사이트 role that we as teachers should be playing ¨C to foster passion in students by encouraging 바카라사이트m to find 바카라사이트ir own sources and to think about our lectures and reading lists in a way that celebrates traditionally marginalised voices.

We also must recognise that for a long time it has been 바카라사이트 way that we teach and that 바카라사이트 voices we have magnified that have fur바카라사이트red that oppression and marginalisation.

The scholars that inspire me are not 바카라사이트 scholars that I learned about when I was 18 or that I was encouraged to find for myself. I wish that 바카라사이트y were. However, 바카라사이트y will be 바카라사이트 scholars my students read and digest, who ask 바카라사이트m questions and inspire 바카라사이트m to respond in creative ways.

They will hear 바카라사이트 voices of Audre Lorde, of bell hooks, of Edward Said, of Sara Ahmed, of Frantz Fanon and learn to understand why anger in politics matters.

Gemma Bird is a lecturer in politics and international relations at 바카라사이트 University of Liverpool.