The great criticism of courses on Western Civilization is that they are about “dead white men.” The rejection of gender and racial bias has a laudable political goal of insuring equality, but it strikes me that when one ceases to consider the ideas of the dead one has lost any sense of civilization and with it any ability to aspire beyond the pleasures and impulses of the moment. The core of civilization lies the enduring nature of ideas, as expressed principally in the written word. It is in essence the product of the dead, but that should not make it dead.

Unfortunately survey courses have an almost implicit tendency to stultify things. They are like art museums, in that they selectively present objects for delectation and contemplation without giving any sense of a larger context. They typically take a view of events that assumes a sense of linear progression in which one idea builds to the next in a manner devoid of any consideration of the relationships that lie beyond the immediate narrative. There is a need for a more engaging way of teaching civilization that encourages thinking about its dynamics in a larger context.

Students need to be encouraged to explore the idea that civilization is a fusion of ideas. Something as a simple as the fact that both Mozart and Beethoven wrote Turkish marches can provide an opening of this awareness, and can be used to show that flow of ideas is far from being one directional. Civilizations cross-fertilize each other. They also tend to swamp the smaller cultures that they encounter.

There is no doubt that the great destruction of indigenous cultures in the period following the “age of discovery” was a product of Western societies. To that extent it was also a product of Western civilization. Yet, despite its inroads into Asia the colonial expansion stopped here was eventually beaten back by a combination of events. Japan, which was never colonized, adopted elements of Western Civilization as its own because they are, for the lack of a better word civilizing. They add refinement to life that can coexist with a robust culture that is rooted in its own deeply established civilization. This is in marked contrast to the myriad of small traditional groups that were swept way by the surge of Western political, economic and military power during the age of colonial expansion.

The loss of those culture came because they were preliterate. As their members perished, so did the works of their minds. By contrast, ancient Egyptian, Mayan and Khmer cultures all persist to some degree because their now dead people recorded their ideas with the aim of preserving them for posterity. It was the luxury of wealth that enabled them to do so. This is one of the most vexing aspects of civilization. It is inextricably associated with the preservation of inheritances. That will always summon up a reaction from those who feel oppressed by it. Yet their ability to articulate that response depends on having the ability to express it, which, in turn, is a product of their civilization. Thus it all hinges on civilization, which is a worthy object of study. So I would like to argue for a more dynamic course of study emphasizing the flows of ideas between and within civilizations as way engaging students with more than just their feelings and opinions.

Please pardon the free flow stream of consciousness in this. I am writing at 3:30AM as a way of easing my mind in a nation that is very tense due the earthquake, tsunami, and I believe overhyped fears of nuclear disaster. There is something to be said for being able to seek respite in the life of the mind and to express oneself to an unknown audience with a sense of sharing certain basic values or at least mutual respect. That ability to commune with other minds, sight unseen, is, I think, the living essence of civilization. It is the great treasure preserved and passed on by scholars and argues well for continuing to offer courses in civilization.

I’m nearsighted. I always sit up front.

I have always figured the ones in front were the ones willing to pay attention. Being a new faculty member is a lot like going to class; show up, take notes, and do the work.

Thank you for this reminder of why I left college teaching!

If your president (or provost) is by his or her disciplinary background a historian, remember that the choice of one’s location in any plenary assembly is informed by the example of the National Convention (1792-95) in France. On the right, and this was a carry-over from the previous Legislative Assembly (1791-92), liberal or constitutional monarchists, who by the time the Convention began meeting were few and far between; effectively, this became a conservative, if not reactionary, position (e.g., readers of Edmund Burke). On the left, and at the rear on the high seats, radical republicans, many of them members of the Jacobin Club (readers of Jean-Jacques Rousseau). In the center, and in the front, a miscellany of deputies of varying ”moderate” opinion for whose votes both the “right” and the “left” competed.

Maybe more to the point, the radical Jacobins at the left rear are remembered as “The Mountain.” Those in the middle were deemed, variously, “The Plain,” “The Marsh,” or “The Swamp.” Those on the right aren’t remembered at all.

So choose your seating with these origins of parliamentary geography in mind. Sitting with “The Mountain,” in addition to increasing one’s chances for seizing control of a legislative body–vide Danton, Robespierre, et al.–also allows an easy escape should the political battles turn lethal, as they frequently did in the early 1790s, or should the speechifying become intolerable, a far more likely circmstance in faculty meetings today than in sessions of the Convention.

I always sat in the back as an undergraduate, and usually got A’s. I get slightly claustrophobic and feel more comfortable sitting near an exit. So perhaps judging people by where they sit ranks right up there with making judgments based upon hairstyles, skin color, clothing, height or weight.

Sherlock Holmes mistrusted anyone who sat with his back to the light, thinking it meant the person had something to hide. After learning he had wrongly suspected a woman due to her seating choice he stated, “And yet the motives of women are so inscrutable. You remember the woman at
Margate whom I suspected for the same reason. No powder on her nose — that
proved to be the correct solution. How can you build on such a quicksand? Their
most trivial action may mean volumes, or their most extraordinary conduct may
depend upon a hairpin or a curling tongs.”

Rules for new faculty who ever hope to get tenure:
1. Never solicit advice from a faculty colleague, unless you are prepared to do whatever he or she advises. Instead, if you want to learn the inside dope about surviving at the institution, just get them talking about various subjects. However, don’t ever ask questions in the form ”What should I do ….?”
2. You don’t need to invite faculty over to your home, but you do need to talk with them one on one or at small groups going to impromptu lunches. Most faculty love to talk about themselves anyway. I cannot count the times that tenure-track faculty with decent publications never knew they were dead in the water simply because tenure committee members at the department and college level didn’t know who they were. The latter won’t get you tenure, but it sure can blow your chances. Women especially tend to work in their office during lunch times while wiser colleagues chew the fat over pizza. Tenure is not a reward rationally decided by enlightened administrators. It’s your colleagues who have the most say, and they won’t give the keys to their castle to someone they don’t know or trust.
3. Thinking you know and understand senior faculty because they are congenial and appear to like you. These are very complex creatures with several faces they can show. Your fate will never matter to them unless you can either benefit them (co-author research, help bring in grant money) or are a potential threat to them (possibly show them up or take resources and perks away if you get tenure). The faculty who is nicest to you may be your greatest opponent, while the gruff, uncivil colleague may have your support (he is just that way with everyone).

Thank you for this intriguing link.

In a faculty meeting sit next to someone who can clue you in to the back story to what’s going on. Pay attention. Learn where the toes are – avoid stepping on them. And learn the names of the administrative staff who can help you actually get things done.

Several have commented about the similiarities between administrators judging faculty and faculty judging students. In my forty years in the academy, I would have to agree with those evaluations. In one of my first faculty fall workshops, a second year faculty member inquired of his more senior colleagues, how they got students to pay attention to assignments and deadlines. One of the more senior faculty members stood up and said, “It shouldn’t surprise us that students don’t pay attention to us. We’ve just sat through three hours of hearing how many of us have ignored deadlines and requirements. The students are just imitating us.
In regard to A students in the front and deadbeats in the back, I would like to offer another take on the subject: Distance Education begins at Twelve Feet 
http://bybaylishighered.wordpress.com Scroll down to the third posting on this page for the Twelve Feet explanation.

We sit at the back of the room because we’ve learned to do so from our students.  As Anna, that great pedagogue, explained, before she became entangled in a harassment scandal with her celebrity student, ”If you become a teacher, by your pupils you’ll be taught.” 

I will add that in the states where it is legal, record all your conversations. From the second that you start your interview to the last second that you will be in that job. Hire a lawyer before you sign a contract and keep that lawyer aware of anything that does not seem right to you. Remember, the university has a lawyer and he/she is consulted on anything before they talk with you…
Just keeping away from all the cliques it does not mean that you will not be attacked. It can happen that the cliques will attackyou just because you are doing your job.

Juan2X, that makes absolutely no sense to me.