Here's the long form report of this morning's class. Aida A. Hozic and Steve Lipman, you asked for it!
This morning I walked into Intro to Global Studies and told the students that they have, standing before them, a certified political scientist and soon to be certified political scientists (the TAs) and I would be happy to answer their questions about the election. It was an interesting, teachable moment.
The first question was: How could this have happened, given the polls? That was an opportunity to talk about the difficulties of survey methodology and margins of error.
Another question: What will happen if we start reneging on our international agreements? My answer was that abrogating international agreements would leave us in a politically weaker position in the world because other countries would trust us less. Future commitments to agreements would be less credible. But one of the negative consequences, in my view, will be the effect on the dollar as the preferred reserve currency. I think there is evidence that the dollar's position as the preferred reserve currency has been declining and many countries are choosing to hold a basket of currencies in reserve. But I think the decline of the desirability of the dollar happen more quickly if the US shows itself to be untrustworthy.
What can we do? To answer that, I quoted Margaret Keck (with attribution), who said, "Don't despair, organize." What will happen? Well, the repeal of the Affordable Care Act will cause harm, but how much harm will depend on whether all provisions are repealed or just some. If all the provisions are repealed then anyone with a pre-existing condition will have great difficulty getting health care. (We have already discussed in class how not having universal health care provided puts American businesses at a competitive disadvantage relative to competitors from countries where universal health care is provided.)
How did this happen? There are, of course, many reasons, but one reason that stands out for me (given my research) is the role that controlling information flows plays. That gave me an opportunity to talk about my theoretical approach to power and the production of agents through controlling information flows. (See my pieces in Millennium and Critical Studies on Security.) Alex Jones & Infowars, Breitbart, et al. emerge as powerful agents as they control the flow of fallacious content -- and, importantly, this content has enormous emotional resonance. (See Sara Ahmed on emotion flows.)
From a foreign student: "I don't understand the concept of "whitelash," and given my identity [an Arab], I feel very uneasy." I had already included a few comments a week or so ago about "white privilege" because the text book contained a passage that explained the concept. At the time, I spoke critically about the passage in the textbook because I think the author (who I respect highly!) did not have the opportunity to truly flesh out the nuances. In my view, white privilege is experienced differently by a wealthy person than by a poor person. So, I was able to tie this back to the reading (always a good thing) and try to have these generally liberal students think empathetically about middle and lower class white males. These fellow citizens have lived without adjectives: They are just "Americans." Not male Americans, not white male Americans. Just the neutral, normal Americans. Others have adjectives: female candidate (as opposed to candidate), Black applicant (as opposed to just an applicant), and so forth. All of a sudden (well, actually pretty gradually since the 1960s) efforts to create diversity kick in. Well, if the economy were booming, increasing diversity would be easy: just increase the number of employees (or students) and add in some people of color, some women, etc. But instead, diversity means fewer opportunities for the people without adjectives. I drew on the language of rational choice (not my usual vocabulary) to tie the concept back to political science: Policies that are Pareto optimal (at least one person is better off, no one is worse off) are great. If diversity efforts were Pareto optimal there would be much less of a concern (though there would still be some racists). From the perspective of the no-adjective folks, however, the efforts at increasing diversity cause them harm. HRC promised more of the same; Trump promised less. And the Black president, Barak Obama, symbolizes the attack that no-adjective people feel on themselves and their life chances. That's real pain felt by some white people, but it's also deeply racist because it comes with a failure to understand the privilege that accrues to those who are able to think of themselves as the "normal" American.
And my favorite question: What would it take to actually make America great? By some measures (size & capability of our military, size of our economy), America *is* great. By other measures (life expectancy, infant mortality, educational attainment), it is definitely not great. In my view, there is a pretty simple indicator of a country's greatness: The country that maximizes life expectancy and minimizes structural violence. Structural violence is (to summarize a complex concept) the difference in life expectancy between the most privileged and the least privileged within society. It's well known that Blacks in Baltimore live on average a lot fewer years than whites. This is the result of a combination of things: more violence in Black neighborhoods, less availability of medical care to poor Blacks, less healthy eating and other elements of a healthy lifestyle, the built environment (e.g., fewer sidewalks so people cannot walk as much), and so forth. A country that has a high life expectancy relative to other countries and that a flat life expectancy distribution among different social groups would be great. If everybody lives a long time and the wealthiest do not live longer than the poorest, we would be doing great. (Later the student came to my office to ask specifically about Japan and what happens when you add low birth rates into the mix. I'm thinking the indicator still holds and I would just expect Japan to implement pro-natalist policies.)
I'm not happy with my response to the question about organizing (voiced by a Russian immigrant who saw Putin's rise to power). I suggested organizing but not demonstrating. Then I read Sarah Parkinson's post, and I feel I need to correct my answer. I'm thinking now that what's being protested is important. The event/outcome of the election itself? No. That happened, and it seems to have happened with little disruption. So our democracy worked. There will be a transition of power and the elected president will take office. But that does not mean that Trump/Pence opponents have to wait until the next election for an opportunity to protest. For heavens sake, protest the man and his policies. And Trump/Pence supporters should feel free to protest the protests. We have a right to protest vigorously (though not violently). We should exercise it.
I've left out a few questions, I'm sure. The students' questions showed that they are an engaged and knowledgeable group.It was an emotionally draining exercise, but actually a very fulfilling one: Yes, the material they are learning in this course and in their other global studies courses matters.
(In case you're curious, I did not have a free-for-all conversation because there are over 80 students in the class.)
