PEER EVALUATION
Dr Timothy Ashplant (Professor of Social and Cultural History, School of Media, Critical & Creative Arts, Liverpool John Moores University, England)
I delivered a class in May 2005 as part of the course "Masculinity in Bulgarian Politics (1879-1944)"
Stefan Detchev sent me in advance a full course-portfolio to enable me to prepare an appropriate class within the overall framework of the course.
I was very impressed by the content of the course; by the ways in which course content and delivery were closely related to the pedagogic aims of the course; and by the self-reflexive account of the process of devising and preparing the course.
The course content began with a carefully-planned overview of key themes and approaches in the history of masculinity as these have been developed over the part fifteen years. Students were introduced to the works of key authors such as the historian George L. Mosse and the sociologist and gender theorist R. W. Connell. These works, which the reading assignments required students to engage with, provided a firm basis for exploring many possible intersections between masculinity and different dimensions of politics.
The course structure also skillfully linked the wider framework of developments in hegemonic and other masculinities which historians have explored across western Europe, with specific themes in Bulgarian and wider Balkan history. The value of this approach lies in the way it enables students to connect international historiographical developments and debates with the national and regional histories with which they are more immediately familiar.
Three further strengths of the course are: (1) the way social and cultural history are integrated with political history (see topics “Boyhood”, Youth and Political Life" and "'A bad time to be a husband, A difficult time to be a father' - The Crisis of Masculinity in Fin-de-siecle Bulgaria"); (2) the connections drawn between analyses of masculinity and patriarchy, and the development of women's political struggles (see topic "Masculinity, Feminism and Women’s Suffrage in Bulgaria"); (3) the connections made between political and social history, and the advent of an international, mass media popular culture (see topic “Hollywood” culture and Masculinity in Bulgaria in the 1930s and the beginning of 1940s"). All these approaches align the course with the most advanced current work in the history of masculinity.
Pedagogically, the course is delivered by a careful balance of lectures, seminars, student reading, and student presentations. This should enable students to become fully engaged with the course, as well as allowing them appropriate scope to develop particular interests within the overall framework. Another valuable element is the use of visual materials, as presented in the course reader, as a stimulus to reflection.
In my opinion, based on twenty years of taking part in BA and MA programme validations in Britain, the course – in content, delivery, and supporting documentation – would meet the most rigorous criteria of "quality control and evaluation" within the British academic system. In particular, the course-portfolio organized by Curriculum Resource Center at CEU Budapest formed an excellent example of self-reflective pedagogic practice, which could serve as an example of "good practice", that is as a model for other teachers embarking on similar pedagogic innovation. It prompted me to fresh thoughts about approaches to teaching masculinity within British history.
In the time of my visit in Bulgarian (May 2005) I was able to see that the issues and themes raised by the course did not enter altogether smoothly into the existing framework of Bulgarian academia. The students displayed an admirable commitment to the course, in engaging with an extra specialist contribution to what is already a full and comprehensive programme. On the other hand, discussion (which was lively and stimulating) revealed the persistence of stereotypes and traditional thinking. This, however, is not a criticism. The introduction of new and challenging ideas about such fundamental questions as gender relations, at a time when Bulgaria together with other countries of eastern Europe is undergoing considerable and difficult social transformations, will inevitably provoke a range of reactions. Two points in particular struck me about the discussion. One was that students were concerned to explore both the differences between their own society and that of early twentieth century Britain about which I lectured, and the processes of change in Britain itself over the past ninety years. In other words, they were using historical understanding in a valuable way, to begin to explore social differences across space (Bulgaria/Britain) and time (1915/2005). Secondly, the liveliness of the discussion suggests that the course and its delivery are enabling students to develop the confidence to put forward their ideas and questions, even when these challenge the perspectives of the lecturer. This is a crucial element in moving towards a mode of teaching which engages students as active learners.
In this regard, I found the course very promising, and the opportunity to participate in it valulable. Perhaps it will help bridge the gap in the curricula and it contribute to possible changes of value system in the Bulgarian university life and in the thematization of masculinity and gender issues in historical and contemporary perspective.
Timothy Ashplant, Ph.D.
John Moores University, Liverpool