"We occasionally see podcast lecture series that contain recordings from a more distant past. (I recall an Oxford podcast with recordings of Isaiah Berlin from the 1950's.) One must always wonder what special reason there could be to listen to those old recordings. What added value would it have to follow an introductory course to political science from 25 years ago, when you can take a contemporary one in stead? And so I have begun to listen looking for an answer to this question.
The method and substance of the course seems not very different from today, nor is the lecturer's language (as opposed to Isaiah Berlin's). And if Anderson uses president Reagan as an example, you could replace his name with Obama and have the same outcome. So, despite a difference of 25 years, the course is very similar and while this means it is not outdated, it also makes the question more compelling: why take an old course if you can take a new one?
I would say, based on the first lectures, it is very fascinating to see the much more subtle differences. I am not sure whether everybody will hear this, but I was struck by nuances in Anderson's general statements. It seemed to me that relativism, though he tries to neutralize it a bit, nevertheless plays a more dominant role in his frame of reference than it would today. Also, in the dichotomy of nature and nurture, nurture seems much less challenged in his line of thought. And last but not least, he displays a kind of monism in his treatment of modern Western culture. He plainly states our society started in Greece. He brushes other influences to the side, even Judaism. I think today we take our history much less segmented and take our culture to be a product not just of classical tradition, but also of a Judeo-Christian tradition, with a variety of additional influences.
Especially if you care to take comparisons, it can be extremely interesting to take this old course. Also, if you regret the loss of classic approach."
-Anne Frid de Vries