The Poisonwood Bible: An Antidote for What Ails International Relations?
| Date | 01 October 2006 |
| Author | April Morgan |
| DOI | 10.1177/0192512106067360 |
| Published date | 01 October 2006 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
The Poisonwood Bible: An Antidote for What Ails
International Relations?
APRIL MORGAN
ABSTRACT. To examine the heuristic value of a work of fiction in an
international relations classroom, students in an upper-level political
science course were asked what stood out to them about international
political economy in the Barbara Kingsolver novel, The Poisonwood Bible.
Student papers were analyzed in a phenomenologically informed
hermeneutic study, for which they received no extra credit. Collective
thematic analysis of responses identified three meanings common to
student experiences of the book. These themes included the relative
power of international political economy theories to explain the Congo’s
underdevelopment during the period covered in the novel, the salience
of interpersonal skills in international relations, and holism in
knowledge and politics. Underlying theoretical implications and study
results are discussed in terms of the pedagogical implications for the
ongoing debate within international relations as a discipline of
explaining versus understanding.
Keywords: • Deep versus surface learning • Fiction • Hermeneutics
• Insider versus outsider knowledge • Phenomenology
International Relations: About Explaining Instead of Understanding?
Some 15 or more years ago, Martin Hollis and Steve Smith (1990: 1, 87)
proclaimed that the social sciences thrive on two intellectual traditions, both of
which they believe are fertile for the study of international relations (IR). Each has
its own story to tell and manner of telling. One narrative belongs to the outsider,
who, in the manner of a scientist, explains how nature works and the role of
human beings within that natural system. Another is told by an insider who
conveys an understanding of what events mean, beyond the laws of cause and
effect. Hollis and Smith (1990) concluded that the two traditions (explaining and
understanding) coexist somewhat tensely and cannot be merely added together.
International Political Science Review (2006), Vol 27, No. 4, 379–403
DOI: 10.1177/0192512106067360 © 2006 International Political Science Association
SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi)
A decade later, Donald J. Puchala (2000: 138) noted that the outsider’s per-
spective appeared to enjoy a privileged position within IR, wherein “Conceptual,
methodological, and terminological borrowing from other social sciences,
especially from economics these days, is approved and encouraged” while works
from the humanities are “generally suspect because their epistemological
groundings are questionable. Intuition, inspiration, revelation, and interpretation
are not accepted by scientists as pathways to truths about objective reality.”1He
went so far as to say that the humanities have been systematically excluded from
mainstream international relations. More recently, Steve Smith (2004: 502)
indicated in his presidential address to the International Studies Association that,
in his estimation, the outsider’s perspective is “increasingly dominant.” While
Smith (2004: 502) has characterized the scientific approach as “an entirely
legitimate way” of approaching international relations, he has also argued that
“there are many others,” which deserve to be more widely validated.
Thus, the tale of the interaction between these two “irreconcilable stories”
(Hollis and Smith, 1990: 215) continues to shape the discipline, yet its impli-
cations for teaching and learning about IR have been insufficiently explored.2This
article addresses this oversight in three parts. First, it examines the implications
for learners of a lopsided focus on explaining. Second, it summarizes selected
research and theory on the potential value of various types of insider knowledge
and discusses fiction’s purported power to spark understanding. Third, it presents
findings of a phenomenologically informed hermeneutic analysis of a pedagogical
technique designed to create more of a balance between the two intellectual
traditions in an international political economy (IPE) class.
Implications for Learners and Teachers
If Puchala (2000) and Smith (2004) are correct that IR privileges explaining over
understanding, we are not alone. Howard Gardner (1999: 162) has argued that
this favoritism exists across disciplines and that its costs to learners are significant:
Thanks to hundreds of studies during the past few decades by cognitively
oriented psychologists and educators, we now know one truth about
understanding: Most students in most schools – indeed, many of the best
students in the best schools – cannot exhibit appreciable understandings of
important ideas.
Students earning top grades in college cannot apply what they have learned and
tend to respond to questions in the same “unschooled” manner that young
children do – as though they had never been exposed to the subject matter
(Gardner, 1999: 162). Physics students fare particularly poorly, but their
interdisciplinary peers share their penchant for a reliance on magical thinking
and an inability to select appropriate conceptual tools on their own. If Gardner is
right, we have a generation of surface learners on our hands.
According to Ference Marton and Roger Säljö (1976), students engaged in
surface-level processing direct their attention toward the text itself and apply a
rote-learning strategy designed to enable them to reproduce the text as written.
They then parrot this material back fairly indiscriminately when asked. Surface
learners stand in contrast to deep learners. Students engaged in deep-level
processing are directed toward the intentionality, meaning, and implications of
380 International Political Science Review 27(4)
To continue reading
Request your trial