The Politics Student *

2007-08-04 9:56 p.m.

It was the first few weeks of my very first term in Birmingham that I actually bothered to scan through the University of Birmingham’s website more thoroughly. Especially, my two department webpages, namely, Economics and Political Science. On the section of “Undergraduate Study”, they state that:

As far as the Political Science degrees are concerned, we welcome students from a variety of academic backgrounds, including history, literature and the natural sciences. There are no preferred A-levels, and neither A-level Politics nor British Government is a necessary prerequisite.

Immediately, I thought that I was in equal footing with my counterparts in the same course. Later I would learnt that some of them had studied politics at A level (which is a subject absent in Singapore) or even A Level Philosophy to their names. Fighting along side them would be tough, or so I imagined. Anyway, the question is, what subject backgrounds should a politics student have?

On hindsight, I would most definitely say that history, at GCSE/O and/or A level, would be a good grounding for any politics student. History, is not simply “the study of man’s past,” as you see in the introduction in basic school textbooks. Rather, it is a web of multiple doors at each step. History shows us that facts or events that come to us are never complete. There is could be, and usually is two or more angles to a story. From the causes of the fall of the Roman Empire to the effects of colonisation in the 19th and early 20th Century, to the background to the Vietnam War, facts never form a jigsaw puzzle; they never are “X” which marks spot. This relates to politics, since politics is a world is multiple sides. Not just the basic political beliefs like liberalism, marxism, social democracy etc, but the playing of these are other ideas in the world. Let look at the very base of politics for another example. It has been remarked that politics studies the process of power. Looking at Steven Lukes’ idea of three faces of power, you may think it flows progressively from the first face of power to the third. [2] However, there are in fact various angles to consider when approaching the topic and in fact there are other criticisms directed at them, even the third face of power. Reading history helps in the sense that the various angles of history of any event at any time period is pretty similar to how you to tackle the approaches in politics.

Relating to the above argument, you would, through the study of history, discover that nothing is inevitable, and that nothing is actually objective .Oh ok, here comes the higher level part of history, looking at historiography itself. That means people like E.H. Carr, Collingwood, and yes the idea of post-modernism. OK, let’s say you’ve never studied History Special Paper (or the new H3 stuff). Turn to the questions on the Cold War. Look at questions like “Was the outbreak of the Cold War inevitable?” and “Who won the Cold War?” You may of course approach and argue the questions the traditional way, however, you would soon realise that you are in a web of subjectivity. Even if you do not embrace the realm of Collingwood’s idea of “all of history is the history of thought” you would be soon be working on such a level. History prepares you to question and ponder even more than the deep level you are presented with.

Politics is pretty much similar. The quest in history is however, just a fraction of the quest in politics. In this case, I’m talking about epistemology, ontology and methodology, and the various approaches to International Relations such as construtivism or realism, or the political science perspectives such as behavioralism or new institutionalism. If you have the experience of walking through the world of history, the most you would do not scream when entering this new world. On a separate note, if you have studied stuff on Carr, Collingwood or the post-modernist view on history, there should be little problem when you encounter the world of post-modernism. Although you must be cautious the in the political case, it is quite different. Still, it would be easy for you to challenge Francis Fukuyama’s theory of the embracing of liberal democracy is the “end of history” or any dialectic.[3]

In short, studying history provides the argumentative and inquisitive nature that is an excellent base for any politics student. Even if you detest the droning of the history of China or the Greeks, or fail to find any love in Bismark and the German States, you would still bring with you the fiery ability to argue around any case, the have the tenacity to dig into anything that you encounter.

In stark contrast, Geography frankly does not seem to embed such traits. I do suppose there is the argumentative side of Geography, looking at which reason caused this contour or this sort of weather phenomena. There is most definitely the inquisitive side, with research and practical study. That’s as much, but it clearly lacks the depth of perspectives and reasoning that history provide. It equips the student with the ability to look at issues from angles, but rests on facts that are fixed in nature. It is in many ways a scientific humanities subject. I do note that certain parts of Geography, like sections of urban development can be related to say parts in the field of government or even International Political Economy though. Still, moving to politics with a geography mindset makes one say a bigger “wow” than moving with even just some history backing.

A “more argumentative” discipline is that of literature. The lit student lives in a world of words and attacks those words using “grand” words. He argues about the best and the worst that has been printed and thus gains a somewhat equal skill as the history student. It does stop there. The inquisitive nature of lit can be argued to be in the search in the primary and secondary text. Alas, literature is only that much dynamic as like geography, the facts are static. What’s more, it is literature, something totally crafted and created. Furthermore, to the extent that you view various perspectives, there are times where there is only one and one fixed way of looking at certain phrases or paragraphs. Yes, you do discuss texts to great length, but it doesn’t give you the opportunity to see issues and facts that just aren’t truly objective. There the vibrancy in literature is limited to looking at the words written recently or a long time ago. A far cry from the world of deep thinking in politics.

Even so, reading and enjoying literature helps you in a political science component—that of discourse theory, looking at the nuances of words, whether in speeches or just ext. Having the literature interpretive grounding would stand one in good stead when tackling this area of political science.

Would the Economics student be a good politics student? Economics is another interesting social science, which some argue is an art, while others argue is a science. Economics does provide somewhat the equal depth in the realm of argument and questioning. Again, it is much scientific in nature given the models like the AD-AS models or the cost curves, and there is the placement of parameters such as the all too famous ceteris paribus, or profit maximisation, or utility maximisation. The great part of economics comes when real world examples gets factored in so much that all theory is dissolved away. The continuous learning of economic concepts may let you brush through ideas such as rational choice theory easily. Yet, you shouldn’t be fooled by the idea that man’s interest is his own self-interest and that utility maximisation is so natural in us. Read Adam Smith’s line on the “Invisible Hand” again.[4] He meant no such thing as natural market cleaning or efficiency. This is the caution you must take, especially in Political Economy.

Science students, despite their subjects being a world away from history, I suppose are set with the mindset of question every deep detail too. The Chemist for instance, may dig into the true forces behind a reaction or the biologist may try to unravel more of the most commonly seen mutation. Yet, they are far, in some sense from presenting the complexity of the world, the world of human ideas and human interactions.

Yet, the history student should by no means assume he has it all to enter the world of political science. In fact, my preference for the politics student , should be, as the IDSS (now RSIS) was (is?) “ponder[ing] the improbable”. He should, while accepting and dissecting the views of others, have a set of own beliefs. He need not be political or affiliated to any organisation, but he must have his ideas on society on the world. As has been clearly noted , the student here is a visionary, not in the usual sense, be one who sees through what even is presented—truly more than open minded.

I have limited my analysis to tha above subjects only. In reality, they can be mixed with a variety or subjects and other activities outside of the classroom, presenting the student with a variety of tools. Also, I’ve focused based on A Lvel subjects. IB subjects, even that of history, literature, economics and geography, may prepare the student better for the world of political science. I have said their Extended Essay component is already an excellent grounding. Also, I understand they read Plato’s works as part of their Theory of Knowledge. Darn, I wonder what they would say to dear Mr. Lassman if they come to Birmingham.

I still think this entry warrants improvement. Also, I have personal reasons why there are so few footnotes.

Notes:

[1] see section Am I qualified to undertake one of these degrees?, Undergraduate Study, Department of Political Science and International Studies, University of Birmingham http://www.polsis.bham.ac.uk/undergraduate/admissions/ug_studies.htm
[accessed 03 August 2007]

[2] Lukes, Steven (1974), Power: A Radical View, London: Macmillan Press Ltd

[3] Fukuyama, Francis, 1992, The End of History and the Last Man, London: Penguin Group, pp xiii, xiv

[4] Smith, Adam, 1776, An Enquiry into the Nature and causes of the Wealth of Nations, Glasgow Edition of Works, Book IV, Chapter 2, 9
http://oll.libertyfund.org/EBooks/Smith_0141.02.pdf

previous - next