More | Report Post

My students joined the intellectuals today - it's wonderful
to see them wake up and start working the problems!

Early in the semester I described the Socratic teaching
method to my students - that I'd be asking questions
without easy answers, that I would not answer the questions
myself, and that they would have to work together for the
solutions.

Today, we read a selection by the sociologist Claude Levi-
Strauss, which discussed chiefs in South American tribes.
I then invited questions from the students and responded to
those questions. My conclusion question was, "This is the
second selection we've read about leadership. The first
was Machiavelli's "The Duties of the Prince." What's the
difference between the two concepts?"
Dead silence. I let it sit. Ask the question again. Let
it sit. And let it sit some more.
One student raised his hand. "Mrs. T, is this one of those
soccer questions?"
soccer, soccer, Socratic. . .
I answered "Yes, it is! Say something to get the class
started!"
He said, "Machiavelli thought a prince should be ready for
war."
Another student said, "Well, you have to have money for
weapons and equipment."
The first student said, "And food, not that soldiers ever
have good food. Pay too. My ancestor quit the Confederate
Army - he hadn't been paid in two years."

The students worked on that problem for about 5 minutes,
but then one said, "Ok, let's give Mrs. T her answer now.
I think Machiavelli's leader hoards his resources and
considers his people as a type of resource. Those chiefs
consider themselves and anything they own as resources for
the people of the tribe. It's like the exact oppposites.
Then, what are we, Mrs. T?"
My response? "Great work on a Socratic question. Good
work, good answer. Let's read what Rousseau and Jefferson
say about leaders in a democracy - next week."  

Posts on this thread, including this one