Session 2 materials: Causes of War, Name That Tune Activity
Focus Questions: What are the onset variables of war? How does a leader’s individual behaviors, state problems, and international forces interact to give rise to these circumstances?
After covering a specific example of how individuals in a society impact war in Week 1, we moved on, this week, to discuss how an individual impacts the domestic and international variables of starting a war. To do this, we opened the class with a short introduction to the basic factors that distinguish a national variable from an international variable, focusing on more difficult terms like balance of power, anarchy, hegemony and alliance behavior. We then had them read the other factors more in detail before splitting them into three groups with each one representing problems a, b or c on the “Name That Tune” worksheet. Once in groups, we had the whole class popcorn-read the excerpts, before giving them each a few minutes to highlight key words or phrases to determine what variable their problem represented. We then had them come back together as a group to discuss the key phrases they chose and how it relates to causes of war. Both activities were Think-Group-Share sessions with short lectures embedded throughout.
From the get-go of the class, it was harder to catch their attention than last week. It might’ve been that it was a class-wide activity or simply that the factors we discussed were of little interest to them, but even splitting the class into groups in the first few minutes of class took longer than expected with some groups much larger than intended. When we briefed the class on the more complicated definitions, there was some more participation for words like hegemony and anarchy, but they still seemed to be a bit disconnected. However, we did manage to gain their attention after delving into our specific cases for the day: North Korea and Iraq.
North Korea seemed to be the most interesting to the class, as it was something more of the class was familiar with and, for whatever they weren’t familiar with, we were able to apply analogies to people and concepts they did understand. When the students were split into groups and determining which variable their problem was associated with, Kayli, Josh and I split up to take charge of one of the groups, where I worked primarily with problem A. Before I even got there, Student A and Student B were discussing the implications of treaties as a systemic condition to the international system. They were, however, a little bit confused on what the Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty is. I jumped in a little here and explained how it’s a bit like a chicken game. It helps make sure the more powerful countries have multilateral access to nuclear weapons, so they can, one, not target it at each other and, two, prevent smaller countries from creating weapons that target them. Student A asked me if it’s like giving a gun to the most powerful people, so they don’t shoot, while Student B asked me if it’s like giving a gun to everyone, so they don’t shoot. Without answering the question directly, I asked the two students to talk amongst themselves of what was similar to their answer and what was different.
When we eventually came back together as a group, students were more engaged in the components we discussed regarding North Korea, such as the Kim’s family cult of personality, the impact of a totalitarian regime and whether or not they would be comfortable living in a society where their leader’s picture is hung on every wall. That element seemed to strike a chord for the students, specifically Student C who was the first to ask what the cult of personality even meant. To that, I asked the student who was someone they found to be really inspiring with a massive following. Collectively, the whole class named Taylor Swift. I then asked the student to imagine a world where everyone was forced to worship Taylor Swift and given no choice but to support her.
We followed the same structure for Iraq where the same factors showed up—cult of personality, the impacts of a dictatorship, the lack of vocal opposition and how a sanction from another country is a way of hurting a country without violence. Overall, there were moments where students were engaged, but I think we could’ve stuck with North Korea from the beginning to capture their interests. In the following weeks, I want to focus more on specific cases, with videos to start the class to act as an introduction rather than just our voices and incorporate activities that are more relatable to them.
Word Count: 750
Focus Questions: What are the onset variables of war? How does a leader’s individual behaviors, state problems, and international forces interact to give rise to these circumstances?
After covering a specific example of how individuals in a society impact war in Week 1, we moved on, this week, to discuss how an individual impacts the domestic and international variables of starting a war. To do this, we opened the class with a short introduction to the basic factors that distinguish a national variable from an international variable, focusing on more difficult terms like balance of power, anarchy, hegemony and alliance behavior. We then had them read the other factors more in detail before splitting them into three groups with each one representing problems a, b or c on the “Name That Tune” worksheet. Once in groups, we had the whole class popcorn-read the excerpts, before giving them each a few minutes to highlight key words or phrases to determine what variable their problem represented. We then had them come back together as a group to discuss the key phrases they chose and how it relates to causes of war. Both activities were Think-Group-Share sessions with short lectures embedded throughout.
From the get-go of the class, it was harder to catch their attention than last week. It might’ve been that it was a class-wide activity or simply that the factors we discussed were of little interest to them, but even splitting the class into groups in the first few minutes of class took longer than expected with some groups much larger than intended. When we briefed the class on the more complicated definitions, there was some more participation for words like hegemony and anarchy, but they still seemed to be a bit disconnected. However, we did manage to gain their attention after delving into our specific cases for the day: North Korea and Iraq.
North Korea seemed to be the most interesting to the class, as it was something more of the class was familiar with and, for whatever they weren’t familiar with, we were able to apply analogies to people and concepts they did understand. When the students were split into groups and determining which variable their problem was associated with, Kayli, Josh and I split up to take charge of one of the groups, where I worked primarily with problem A. Before I even got there, Student A and Student B were discussing the implications of treaties as a systemic condition to the international system. They were, however, a little bit confused on what the Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty is. I jumped in a little here and explained how it’s a bit like a chicken game. It helps make sure the more powerful countries have multilateral access to nuclear weapons, so they can, one, not target it at each other and, two, prevent smaller countries from creating weapons that target them. Student A asked me if it’s like giving a gun to the most powerful people, so they don’t shoot, while Student B asked me if it’s like giving a gun to everyone, so they don’t shoot. Without answering the question directly, I asked the two students to talk amongst themselves of what was similar to their answer and what was different.
When we eventually came back together as a group, students were more engaged in the components we discussed regarding North Korea, such as the Kim’s family cult of personality, the impact of a totalitarian regime and whether or not they would be comfortable living in a society where their leader’s picture is hung on every wall. That element seemed to strike a chord for the students, specifically Student C who was the first to ask what the cult of personality even meant. To that, I asked the student who was someone they found to be really inspiring with a massive following. Collectively, the whole class named Taylor Swift. I then asked the student to imagine a world where everyone was forced to worship Taylor Swift and given no choice but to support her.
We followed the same structure for Iraq where the same factors showed up—cult of personality, the impacts of a dictatorship, the lack of vocal opposition and how a sanction from another country is a way of hurting a country without violence. Overall, there were moments where students were engaged, but I think we could’ve stuck with North Korea from the beginning to capture their interests. In the following weeks, I want to focus more on specific cases, with videos to start the class to act as an introduction rather than just our voices and incorporate activities that are more relatable to them.
Word Count: 750