Political Science Pedagogy: A Critical, Radical and Utopian Perspective

William Sokoloff’s Political Science Pedagogy: A Critical, Radical and Utopian Perspective, while grounded in a critical assessment of teaching methods for political theory, constitutes an exciting intervention into wider discussions of classroom practices relevant for both political science and the social sciences in general. It argues that a critical, democratic pedagogy should be grounded in the cultivation of the voice of students through visceral, action oriented, egalitarian classroom practice. The book makes its argument through both analysis of political theory texts and presentation of examples of innovative classroom practice. Its underlying premise is that, perhaps ironically, most political science education does not prepare students to be effective citizens or democratic political actors. Instead, both conservative-traditional and liberal-cosmopolitan oriented classroom practice rely upon under-acknowledged power inequalities between students and faculty that undermine the learner’s ability to engage with the material in ways that would empower them as democratic political actors. Sokoloff specifies this critique through incisive analysis of one of the main teaching methods with which political theorists shape their courses—that of dialogue. In his chapter on the surprising similarity among Leo Strauss, Sheldon Wolin and Socrates, he argues that traditional understandings of classroom dialogue, whether manifesting itself in terms of course substance or classroom practice, constitutes an impediment to the development of democratic civic skills. In the case of Strauss and Wolin, Sokoloff claims that, while Strauss’s hostility to democracy is well known, the work of liberal Wolin actually reflects many of these same biases. To Sokoloff, Wolin’s surprising support of authoritarianism is grounded in his understanding of political theory as entering “into a debate the terms of which have largely been set beforehand” that is further “transmitted as cultural legacy” (38-39). Sokoloff claims Wolin’s reliance upon a dialogue with a predetermined cannon around a limited number of topics undermines the cultivation of students’ imagination and agency. Instead he advocates for a “fugitive textuality” (47) where students exercise “playful