Publication Type: Abstract
Abstract: Thirty of the forty courses that Cadets take at the United States Military Academy (USMA) constitute the “core” curriculum. One of those courses that all Cadets take, from Physicists to Philosophers, is “International Relations”. A demanding course that requires students to prepare a research & analysis paper in which they use pattern-matching techniques to analyze a single historical case study through two competing theories in order to gain insights into “why states do what they do.” Though 15% of the student body majors in political science, 85% of the Cadets are NOT poli-sci majors and some come into the class with the sole intent of “grinding” through and hoping for an average grade because they “don’t like politics.”

The International Relations Instructors at USMA are currently fighting that mind-set by working with Cadets to show how “politics” affects their major. We firmly believe that whatever a cadet’s major is, understanding the political/policy-aspects of their expertise makes them more well-rounded in their major. We briefed every department at West Point and have jointly developed a list of political topics that are relevant to every major—from Physics to Philosophy.

Preliminary anecdotal feedback is positive regarding the number of Cadets writing their poli-sci paper on topics relevant to their majors and finding it relevant & interesting. By the end of the Fall 2004 semester, we will have more conclusive data to support or deny this conclusion.

If the final results are positive, this would be an excellent technique for other “required” courses to follow to improve learning for their students.

There also appears to be some value in this technique in helping poli-sci majors finding their interest areas within the field of International Relations. This would be useful to courses in International Relations that are not required.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: NEGOTIATING THE GOOD LIFE:
ARISTOTLE AND THE CIVIL SOCIETY


ABSTRACT:

How to solve the liberal/communitarian debate? Today, we are beginning to realize that this much discussed tension is fundamentally false. Modern liberals have come to embrace a more holistic concept of freedom, one focused on autonomy but also on community, as citizens choose to exercise of virtue and freely negotiate a notion of the common Good.

This modern concept of “freedom in community” is, in the end, not so new: it was first put forward by Aristotle. It was he who first argued cogently for “flourishing” and for a “completed life” as the proper end of man, and as the essence of happiness. But this flourishing does not and cannot take place in isolation. We are deeply social beings, and our stories demand listeners as well as narrators.

But what kind of polis is relevant for us in the post-Classical, post-Enlightenment and post-existentialist world? Clearly, traditional statist models have failed, and will not do in the diverse and pluralistic environment of the 21st century. I think Aristotle would seek the answer in a liberal community, and specifically in the global civil society. Only a globally interlinked and free set of communities of ideas can provide the nourishment and the proper setting for eudaimonia in the modern sense. I propose to examine three contemporary examples of modern civil society in my search for a neo-Aristotelian polis: Al Qaeda, the Gay Liberation Movement and Amnesty International. All will be found wanting, but the ideal remains compelling.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Leo Strauss notes the ancient city's link between political/sacred. Christianity shattered this by distancing religion from the public realm. As Christianity's influence wanes, Strauss considers the ancient city's political/sacred link will return.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: The typical character of ancient Greek public life was agonistic. Private womanly virtues such as peacefulness and hospitality were not taken seriously. Any society suffers when the voices of women are not allowed to be heard in public spaces.